Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Peter A. J. Pilgrim wrote: Eddie Bush wrote: Peter A. J. Pilgrim wrote: As a core contributor for Expresso Framework I find this discussion interesting. Yes. I am not sure who started that nomenclature, but I find it more intuative. Plus - sub-apps implies there is a super-app ;

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Eddie Bush wrote: Peter A. J. Pilgrim wrote: As a core contributor for Expresso Framework I find this discussion interesting. Yes. I am not sure who started that nomenclature, but I find it more intuative. Plus - sub-apps implies there is a super-app ;-) and there isn't. -- For

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Actually, looking back at that, I think I disagree with postponing Tiles' update to 1.2. I love the idea of having a roadmap up though ;-) Ted Husted wrote: I posted a starter version of the roadmap so we'd have something to patch :0) http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/status.html -Ted. -- E

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Eddie Bush [mailto:ekbush@;swbell.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:10 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > Ted Husted wrote: > > >I posted a starter versi

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

I don't think anyone is trying to say that Struts isn't useful without Tiles/Validator. They *are* very handy though, IMHO! I'm not sure what our leadership has in mind for deprecating/removing Tiles/Validator in later releases. Right now, the task at hand is 1.1F. As Ted mentioned, "... the

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Peter A. J. Pilgrim wrote: As a core contributor for Expresso Framework I find this discussion interesting. In Expresso one of the contributors put together a XML Augmentator that parse several XML configuration files. We integrated Struts 1.0.2 so we do not have a special notation of sub app

Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

;> From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:27 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability >> >> >> To me, validator and tiles are part of the core. Without >>

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Looks good. Ted Husted wrote: I posted a starter version of the roadmap so we'd have something to patch :0) http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/status.html -Ted. -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Yeah - what he said ;-) Ted Husted wrote: I like Craig's idea of slotting 2.3/1.2 for 2.0.x for now. Let's do some actually work on 1.2.x before committing to a requirements change. If we start to feel hamstrung, we can decide that based on a specific need (keep it agile). -Ted. 10/16/2002

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Steve :-) I appreciate your effort, but we're *not* going to 2.3 / 1.2 in Struts 1.2! 1.2 is for "clean-up only" - to solidify modules. One of the goals of 1.2 is still *backward-compatability* with 1.0! We cannot move to 2.3 / 1.2 and maintain this! Byrne, Steven wrote: I was given to und

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

I think what we established for a roadmap yesterday seperated the 2.3 compliance conversion out into something past 1.2. There are a number of things that aren't going to meet everyone's approval wrt 1.1F. Those things, and only those things, as I understand it, would be in 1.2. We need to c

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Exactly. Though, hopefully, we each will do some things not just because it's a need *we* have. It's only understandable we'd scratch our own itch first, but, provided we have time to implement additional things, I like to think we would do that too. (but remember - we have families we like

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

I'll add that to my "in my copious free time" list :)) But seriously, one of these days I will, and I will have an example application for folks to download as well at some point in the next months timeframe that will illustrate this. I might even have a go at making the struts-documentation.wa

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

10/17/2002 2:28:38 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The "sharing" is the thing we're struggling with - more precisely the >timing of implementing it. It has been suggested this would happen in >1.2, and I think that's acceptable. Whether and when something happens will always depend

Re: RE: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

10/17/2002 4:05:47 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Three quick notes: > >* We should specifically ask on the user list about the timing > of Servlet 2.3 / JSP 1.2 dependence. I would expect this to > be a bit controversial on that short a time frame. On the > other hand,

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

f the developers. David Karr -- care to chime in on whether Struts-el needs Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2? Steve > -Original Message- > From: Eddie Bush [mailto:ekbush@;swbell.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:29 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings f

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Eddie Bush [mailto:ekbush@;swbell.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:29 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > Byrne, Steven wrote: > > >Here's the draft roadm

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Byrne, Steven [mailto:sbyrne@;dorado.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:56 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > I was given to understand that Struts-el needed Servlet 2.

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

g on a common proposal for a next major version of JSTL. > -Original Message- > From: Karr, David [mailto:david.karr@;attws.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:50 AM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatabil

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

common proposal for a next major version of JSTL. -Original Message- From: Karr, David [mailto:david.karr@;attws.com] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:50 AM To: 'Struts Developers List' Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability -Original Message

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Byrne, Steven wrote: Here's the draft roadmap that I wrote up. Struts 1.1 * Servlet 2.2 / JSP 1.1 based * tiles & validator first class citizens * tiles module aware * validator module aware * Struts-el tag lib at contrib status * [need help here] ??? factored out into jakarta commons *

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

I'm thick-headed and stupid - that's the problem. I was misreading the document earlier. My apologies. Ted stated "Remaining ...", but I read "in 1.2".I'm sorry. Martin Cooper wrote: I'm beginning to think that you and Eddie are reading a different document that the one I'm seeing. I don'

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

+1 Ted Husted wrote: Erik, If you'd like to write a section for the UserGuide on using XDoclet with Struts, I'm sure we'd all love to read it =:0) -Ted. -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability Here's the draft roadmap that I wrote up. Struts 1.1 * Servlet 2.2 / JSP 1.1 based * tiles & validator first class citizens *

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Craig R. McClanahan wrote: Three quick notes: * We should specifically ask on the user list about the timing of Servlet 2.3 / JSP 1.2 dependence. I would expect this to be a bit controversial on that short a time frame. On the other hand, knowing we could interoperate with (and not just in

RE: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

ake it cleaner] * validators * investigate adding identifier namespaces > -Original Message- > From: Ted Husted [mailto:husted@;apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 5:04 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatabili

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Eddie Bush [mailto:ekbush@;swbell.net] > > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:10 AM > > To: Struts Developers List > > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1

RE: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

gt; > To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > Here's the draft roadmap that I wrote up. > > Struts 1.1 > * Servlet 2.2 / JSP 1.1 based > * tiles & validator first class citizens >

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

without incorporating the JSTL EL engine, and that something like "regionstiles-el" would be implemented separately. > -Original Message- > From: Byrne, Steven [mailto:sbyrne@;dorado.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 12:26 PM > To: Struts Developers List >

Re: RE: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

I like Craig's idea of slotting 2.3/1.2 for 2.0.x for now. Let's do some actually work on 1.2.x before committing to a requirements change. If we start to feel hamstrung, we can decide that based on a specific need (keep it agile). -Ted. 10/16/2002 8:06:58 PM, "Byrne, Steven" <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Erik, If you'd like to write a section for the UserGuide on using XDoclet with Struts, I'm sure we'd all love to read it =:0) -Ted. 10/16/2002 8:00:00 PM, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ted Husted wrote: > >> Using the same element name more than once is really only the tip of the

RE: Multiple struts config files (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability)

Developers List Subject: Multiple struts config files (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability) I developed a system that handles the need for having multiple components of a Struts application (Struts, Tiles, Validator, etc) partitioned in a modular fashion, so that independent groups

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > > > Don't have time to dive into the substantive technical details today, but > in general I'm OK with a strategy of comma-delimited list of > struts-config.xml resource files used to configure a single app module > (consi

RE: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Original Message- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:33 PM > To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > > IMHO, any rational roadmap for pos

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Ted Husted wrote: > Using the same element name more than once is really only the tip of the iceberg. We >can also delete or rename a > form bean from the file and Struts will not catch the problem until runtime. Not in my system! :) XDoclet to the rescue. Form bean definitions are generat

Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 19:32:21 -0400 > From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject

Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

I agree that at this point pulling the Validator and Tiles from the core distribution would be more trouble than keeping them in, but it's important to note that both components have been around since the Struts 0.5 era, and I was using them in production with a late beta of Struts 1.0 years a

Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

10/16/2002 6:51:23 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> That's one possibility, but it leaves the door wide open for people to shoot >> themselves in the foot. >> >> Consider a situation with two config files, a.xml and b.xml. Now, a.xml >> contains an action, actionA, that spec

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

PROTECTED]> >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability >Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:56:22 -0500 > >At 2:26 PM -0600 2002/10/16, David Graham wrote: >>To me, validator and tiles are part of the core. Witho

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

At 2:26 PM -0600 2002/10/16, David Graham wrote: >To me, validator and tiles are part of the core. Without them, >struts loses much of its utility and importance. I think that's a bit extreme. Action classes are part of the core; RequestProcessor is part of the core. I've built several Strut

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 3:51 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > > > On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Martin Cooper w

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Martin Cooper wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:43:44 -0700 > From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: 'Struts Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: R

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Martin Cooper wrote: >>-Original Message- >>From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:20 PM >>To: Struts Developers List >>Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability >> >> >>10/16/2002

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:20 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > 10/16/2002 2:43:57 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Craig R. McClanahan wrote: >It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission :-) > I'm learning that - albeit slowly! >Craig > -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Ted Husted wrote: >10/16/2002 5:22:13 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Don't have time to dive into the substantive technical details today, but >>in general I'm OK with a strategy of comma-delimited list of >>struts-config.xml resource files used to configure a single app

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Thanks for your clearification. I think that would be a good solution. I wasn't seeing the trees for the forest :-( Ted Husted wrote: >10/16/2002 5:01:55 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I think it's reasonable we would fix things to be independent now, as >>Martin and Craig hav

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

+1 - sounds like a very good solution. Craig R. McClanahan wrote: >On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > >>From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>If Steve, or anyone else, would like to start putting together a roadmap for Struts >1.1, 1.2, and 1.2+ (formerly >>1.1+), I'll be happy to pos

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:22 PM > To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > > > On Wed,

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Byrne, Steven wrote: >Definitely a big part of what 1.1 is all about is integrating Tiles and >Validator into the main Struts distribution. Pulling them back into >pseudo-contrib status would not be a good thing. > Yeah -- I'm -1 taking them out of core too. >Has anyone estimated the level o

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:13 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > 10/16/2002 5:01:55 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:29:35 -0400 > From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sub

Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

gnificantly challenging release, and thus > >would extend the time that people would have to wait for a fully working > >tiles/validator version of Struts. > > > >Steve > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

10/16/2002 5:22:13 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Don't have time to dive into the substantive technical details today, but >in general I'm OK with a strategy of comma-delimited list of >struts-config.xml resource files used to configure a single app module >(consistent with

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:13:19 -0400 > From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sub

Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

dator version of Struts. > >Steve > >> -Original Message- >> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:34 PM >> To: Struts Developers List >> Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability >> >&g

Re: Multiple struts config files (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability)

ms to fit the >bill for a way to address the need for modular but not totally >independent web applications. > >Steve > >> -Original Message----- >> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:34 PM >> To: Struts Deve

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

10/16/2002 5:01:55 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think it's reasonable we would fix things to be independent now, as >Martin and Craig have suggested, and then look at making modules >cooperate next. I'm not talking about anyting to do with modules cooperating or not. I'm just s

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

JSF is still a moving target, isn't it? Assuming we get the current outstanding issues cleared and cut 1.1F in a reasonable time-frame (tbd), I really don't think it would take long to implement the additional changes required to make modules communicate. It's really an insignificant change

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

I think I like your intent, but I fail to see how this would accomplish it. Ted Husted wrote: >10/16/2002 2:43:57 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Do we need a proposal maybe? >> > >As a rule, we propose through code, since that's all we can really vote on anyway =:0) > >My only poi

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Ted Husted wrote: >10/16/2002 4:03:01 PM, "V. Cekvenich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Can you wait till 1.2 Ted? >> >All that I'm saying is that we should support specifying a list of struts-config >files, as we do for the >validator and tiles configs. This way people could split up the confi

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

>> >> >> >> >>>From: Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >>>"'[EMAIL PROTEC

Multiple struts config files (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability)

he bill for a way to address the need for modular but not totally independent web applications. Steve > -Original Message- > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:34 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

D]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:34 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > 10/16/2002 4:03:01 PM, "V. Cekvenich" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Can you wait till 1.2 Ted? > > All that I&#x

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Original Message- > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > To me, validator and tiles are part of the core. Without > them, struts

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

10/16/2002 4:03:01 PM, "V. Cekvenich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Can you wait till 1.2 Ted? All that I'm saying is that we should support specifying a list of struts-config files, as we do for the validator and tiles configs. This way people could split up the config files without buying into

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability >Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:54:18 -0500 > >At 12:27 PM -0700 2002/10/16, Martin Cooper wrote: >> > Now that we have

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

+1 by a non committee on M.C. vetoing new features. Can you wait till 1.2 Ted? .V Martin Cooper wrote: > >>-Original Message- >>From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:23 AM >>To: Struts Developers List >>Subjec

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

At 12:27 PM -0700 2002/10/16, Martin Cooper wrote: > > Now that we have modules in play, would anyone VETO adding >> the capability to have a delimited list of struts- >> configs (for each module) -- to match what we do with the >> tiles and validator configurations? If for no other >> reason

Re: Modules in Struts 1.1 (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability)

Thank God someone has started throwing their votes around. Hop on the other thread please, Craig. I'd like to have everything in one spot. Craig R. McClanahan wrote: >On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Martin Cooper wrote: > >>Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:36:34 -0700 >>From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Modules in Struts 1.1 (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability)

----- > > From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:44 AM > > To: Struts Developers List > > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > > > > Ted Husted wrote: > > > > >>From an

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

10/16/2002 2:43:57 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >:-/ Well, there's nothing to stop you from referencing the same physical >pages that I can think of - but the definitions would be duplicated I >suppose. This could be solved by the same concatenation tricks used for >previous versi

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:23 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > From an API perspective, a big issue may be being able

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

10/16/2002 2:43:57 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Do we need a proposal maybe? As a rule, we propose through code, since that's all we can really vote on anyway =:0) My only point is that if I patch the controller to support a delimited list of struts-configs, as we do with Tiles a

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Ted Husted wrote: >>From an API perspective, a big issue may be being able to also refer to tile >locations using both module- >relative AND application-relative URIs. In a large application, we will want to share >tiles between modules to >establish a common look and feel. > Yes - saw that c

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

>From an API perspective, a big issue may be being able to also refer to tile >locations using both module- relative AND application-relative URIs. In a large application, we will want to share tiles between modules to establish a common look and feel. I have a beast in front of me now with 8

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability Odd - I didn't see it on the "products" page (overlooked?) but it was on the download page. Unfortunately that is not available in a Linux version. I grabbed it anyhoo - I have a Windoze install too. Eddie Bush wrote: > I don&

RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> -Original Message- > From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 7:25 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability > > > Cedric Dumoulin wrote: > > > There is no up to d

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Odd - I didn't see it on the "products" page (overlooked?) but it was on the download page. Unfortunately that is not available in a Linux version. I grabbed it anyhoo - I have a Windoze install too. Eddie Bush wrote: > I don't see SilverRun JD 1.1 - there's something called ModelSphere. >

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

I don't see SilverRun JD 1.1 - there's something called ModelSphere. Is that it? I like the idea of letting a tool build diagrams ;-) I snagged the demo of ModelSphere. Robert Leland wrote: > > There is no up to date UML diagram. > > The later one is a not up to date reverse engineering of t

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

> There is no up to date UML diagram. > The later one is a not up to date reverse engineering of the tiles package. I used SilverRun JD 1.1 to produce the diagrams. It is a free package, not opensource but free. I have Rational Rose 98, and tried other open source tools but they all were eithe

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Ok. Sorry about dragging my feet - I got ... well, my wife changed my mind about what my evening plans were :-) I'll get that in today at some point. Cedric Dumoulin wrote: > > No reason, I think we (you ;-) ) can close this bug with the proposed > solution. For the NoOpAction, we can depr

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Cedric Dumoulin wrote: > There is no up to date UML diagram. The later one is a not up to date > reverse engineering of the tiles package. Ok - thanks :-) I had to ask! I think I see where things are happening now. I feel I have a lot better understanding of it. Yesterday was the first

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

There is no up to date UML diagram. The later one is a not up to date reverse engineering of the tiles package. What are you thoughts to make Tiles more "module aware" ? Actually there is one common factory for all modules. It is possible to propose a solution with one factory for each modu

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

No reason, I think we (you ;-) ) can close this bug with the proposed solution. For the NoOpAction, we can deprecate it and maybe let it extends the ForwardAction. Cedric Eddie Bush wrote: > Yes, I've seen that bug. I'll take a look at it. > > Does anyone have a valid reason why thi

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

True - but what about tools ;-) They don't mind writing a little extra :-) I have to admit I tend to use this format myself. I suppose the primary reason I do is that if I ever need to change things (forward-looking) so that the action actually does something, I can just change the class. O

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

No, but here's a related practices question: An ActionMapping has a forward property too. If the resource in question is within the same module, is ActionMapping.forward "better" than using the ForwardAcion. (It's definatley less to write!) -T. 10/15/2002 3:34:29 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Yes, I've seen that bug. I'll take a look at it. Does anyone have a valid reason why this shouldn't be done? David Graham wrote: > Eddie, > Can you take a look at > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12309 > > It relates to tiles and 1.1. I'd like to get your thoughts on it.

Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability

Eddie, Can you take a look at http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12309 It relates to tiles and 1.1. I'd like to get your thoughts on it. Sorry, this didn't really answer your question. Dave >From: Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROT