any one look this
http://www.playframework.org/
will this feature inside S2
F
Looks like you want a car inside the engine.
I take a quick look at the first 3 minutes of video: Controller and
Model class seem to be a hierarchy-killer.
Do you know appfuse [1]? though I prefer grails [2]
[1] http://appfuse.org/display/APF/Home
[2] http://www.grails.org/
2010/12/10 Frans
i know appfuse, but the real live concept is good
am i post in wrong mailing list ?
F
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Maurizio Cucchiara
maurizio.cucchi...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like you want a car inside the engine.
I take a quick look at the first 3 minutes of video: Controller and
I like it.
It has some fast way to create pages.
And I really enjoy the possibility to pass params directly to a method,
without getters setters. It can be new feature to S2! Helps to keep the
Action class clean!
See you!
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Frans Thamura fr...@meruvian.org
thx
that is the idea of my thread ;)
thx :)
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Felipe Lorenz felipe.lor...@gmail.comwrote:
I like it.
It has some fast way to create pages.
And I really enjoy the possibility to pass params directly to a method,
without getters setters. It can be new
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Frans Thamura wrote:
any one look this
http://www.playframework.org/
will this feature inside S2
Why bother? Use one or the other.
Dave
It does appear to be an interesting way of doing it and it would
certainly help on action class bloat, especially on actions where a form
may contain lots of parameters.
In some places we've actually reverted to a hack concept of ActionForms
where our web page contains class.property variables
Actually, it shouldn't come down to using the *other* because the
*one*doesn't support one neat feature. I have always thought the
parameters
interceptor should reflect on object properties in the case where it could
not find a set/get method. These determinations could be cached. Dave, can
you
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM, stanl...@gmail.com wrote:
I have always thought the parameters interceptor should reflect on object
properties in the case where it could
not find a set/get method.
Properties haven't needed setters since ~2.1, give or take. I don't know if
that was an OGNL
No schit! Going to try it now.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Dave Newton davelnew...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM, stanl...@gmail.com wrote:
I have always thought the parameters interceptor should reflect on object
properties in the case where it could
not find a
I think they still have to be public, but I don't really remember anymore.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM, stanl...@gmail.com wrote:
No schit! Going to try it now.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Dave Newton davelnew...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM,
They do, but what the hell. I think we have reached a level of
sophistication (pronounced no dumb people on the team) where this should no
longer be a problem. I really haven't seen validation code in a setter
method anyway. They are usually generated as:
public void setFoo(String foo){
12 matches
Mail list logo
