I reorganized the WebKit directory, so that there is a new Adapters
directory, which contains all adapters (including C adapters). This
somewhat reduces the number of files directly in WebKit, which was
getting larger than necessary, as well as making it easier to browse
adapters.
I haven't test
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 23:05, Matthew J. Feifarek wrote:
> Ian Bicking wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 22:39, Matthew J. Feifarek wrote:
> >
> >
> >I myself never use actions, though kind of for this reason -- I have a
> >hard time arranging the logic when actions are sometimes called, and
> >
Ian Bicking wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 22:39, Matthew J. Feifarek wrote:
>
>
>I myself never use actions, though kind of for this reason -- I have a
>hard time arranging the logic when actions are sometimes called, and
>sometimes not. My solution has been not to use actions at all.
>
>
I
Is there any reason why we shouldn't package WebKit.exe with Webware?
And, on that topic, does anyone have that file lying around, as I do
not...?
Ian
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgee
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 22:39, Matthew J. Feifarek wrote:
> I love the actions stuff in WebKit; and I think that EVERY transaction
> should really have an action; basically, each transaction is calling a
> method of an object. Why should the "writeHTML" be any different?
I myself never use action
Ian Bicking wrote:
>If this seems like a hack, I think the best way would be to formalize
>the notion of a default action, since that's what you're really asking
>for. I think it's more robust, because you'll still be able to use GET
>
>
This is something that I've been thinking about a lot.
Jason Hildebrand wrote:
>The FormKit guys (Matt and Martin) would like to include this in future
>FormKit releases, but it needs the above patch applied to webware before
>it will be plug-and-play.
>
>
Actually, we're still thinking about this one. We use actions a lot for
security testing, an
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 21:22, Jason Hildebrand wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 19:38, Ian Bicking wrote:
> > It looks pretty innocuous, but I also have a hard time seeing the
> > function of this method. Well -- I think I get an idea of how you are
> > using it, but I'm having a harder time seeing
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 19:38, Ian Bicking wrote:
> It looks pretty innocuous, but I also have a hard time seeing the
> function of this method. Well -- I think I get an idea of how you are
> using it, but I'm having a harder time seeing what it's general function
> is.
I suppose it's the same thi
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 23:18, Karl Putland wrote:
> This patch provides unification of "old style" and normal actions.
> For those that would need to keep the "old style" actions as they were
> a configuration variable could be set in the Application.config
Okay, this patch has been applied. I al
It looks pretty innocuous, but I also have a hard time seeing the
function of this method. Well -- I think I get an idea of how you are
using it, but I'm having a harder time seeing what it's general function
is.
Right now the _action_ field works on both POST and GET. But this only
gets called
Hi all,
I've submitted a patch to Page which implements a
handlePostWithoutAction() method. Here's the description:
"The handlePostWithoutAction method is called by _respond if a form is
submitted, but no action was called. This can happen legitimately if
javascript is used to submit a form whe
CALL ME ...I WOULD LIKE TO SEND YOU EMAIL OFFERS
OR IF YOU WANT TO BE REMOVED FROM MY LIST ALSO CALL ME AT
937-855-6288
Thanks!
Dana Sharpe
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
13 matches
Mail list logo
