On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:21:54AM -0700, Kyle VanderBeek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 08:58:01AM -0500, Jason Hildebrand wrote:
> > I've applied your patch to my local tree, and am testing it with an app
> > I'm working on to see if there are any incompatibilities.
> >
> > What happened to Pa
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 08:58:01AM -0500, Jason Hildebrand wrote:
> I've applied your patch to my local tree, and am testing it with an app
> I'm working on to see if there are any incompatibilities.
>
> What happened to Page.validateHTML()?
Crap! Ok, I got overly zealous in my deleting. That
On Sat, 2004-10-02 at 13:47, Kyle VanderBeek wrote:
> I couldn't make CVS diff honor the -N flag for some reason, so here
> is a
> first cut at a new class HTTPContent, containing the non-HTML parts
> formerly in Page (and a diff to Page.py).
> Please comment.
Hi Kyle,
I've applied your patch t
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 03:15:33PM -0400, Aaron Switzer wrote:
> I do agree that a "lower-level" extension point would be useful and more
> inline with OO design. I guess stripping out the HTML specific stuff
> would be a good starting point.
I couldn't make CVS diff honor the -N flag for some re
Actually I didn't refactor Page because I thought it was too heavy, I
kept at least 90% of it unchanged, and in fact added to it. I changed
it because I wanted to use XML/XSLT to produce my output.
I do agree that a "lower-level" extension point would be useful and more
inline with OO design. I
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:55:41AM -0400, Aaron Switzer wrote:
> There's no reason why you can't just create your own version of Page. I
> ran into the same situation as you, in that I didn't want to embed HTML
> right into the servlets, so I took Page and cut out what I didn't need
> and added a
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:55:41AM -0400, Aaron Switzer wrote:
[snip]
> ...so I took Page and cut out what I didn't need
> and added a couple of things. I use my version of Page as the
> super-class for all of my servlets.
Forgot to mention: doesn't this sentence scream to you that a
refactoring
Hello Mr. VanderBeek-
I've been using WebWare for a month now and I am rather happy with
Webware. The thing I like best about Webware is it's simplicity which
makes it easy to alter to do what I want. As you have already seen, when
a module such as Page isn't exactly right, you can easily follow
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:24:53 -0700
Kyle VanderBeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm evaluating WebWare for possible uses at my company. However, I'm
> distressed by how heavyweight and html-specific WebKit.Page is. I think
> it is bothersome, a little confusing, and not very graceful when it
> c
I'm evaluating WebWare for possible uses at my company. However, I'm
distressed by how heavyweight and html-specific WebKit.Page is. I think
it is bothersome, a little confusing, and not very graceful when it
comes to wanting to write a webapp that extends the toolkit.
My primary gripe is tha
There's no reason why you can't just create your own version of Page. I
ran into the same situation as you, in that I didn't want to embed HTML
right into the servlets, so I took Page and cut out what I didn't need
and added a couple of things. I use my version of Page as the
super-class for all
Hello Mr. VanderBeek-
I've been using WebWare for a month now and I am rather happy with
Webware. The thing I like best about Webware is it's simplicity which
makes it easy to alter to do what I want. As you have already seen,
when
a module such as Page isn't exactly right, you can easily follow
(First try didn't go through due to a From-address mismatch.)
I'm evaluating WebWare for possible uses at my company. However, I'm
distressed by how heavyweight and html-specific WebKit.Page is. I think
it is bothersome, a little confusing, and not very graceful when it
comes to wanting to write
13 matches
Mail list logo
