Bugs item #1551850, was opened at 2006-09-04 09:36
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=684975&aid=1551850&group_id=119783
Please note that this message will contain a full copy
Bugs item #1551912, was opened at 2006-09-04 11:42
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=684975&aid=1551912&group_id=119783
Please note that this message will contain a full copy
The current javadoc and implementation of isPageAuthorized has an annonymous
class as parameter. Shouldn't it be a parameterized class since all parameters
should be classes extending Page?
<>-
Using Tomcat but need to do
Bugs item #1552061, was opened at 2006-09-04 16:02
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=684975&aid=1552061&group_id=119783
Please note that this message will contain a full copy
Bugs item #1552143, was opened at 2006-09-04 12:24
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=684975&aid=1552143&group_id=119783
Please note that this message will contain a full copy
I don't get that error. What are you compiling it with?
That class looks sloppy though. No docs, no example for it, warnings
that can be easily fixed. Please devs, BEFORE you commit make sure
that at least it complies to our basic coding standards; format it,
remove unused imports, JavaDoc it, eve
shish, it wasnt supposed to be checked in yet, my badbtw compiles fine for me-IgorOn 9/4/06, Eelco Hillenius <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I don't get that error. What are you compiling it with?
That class looks sloppy though. No docs, no example for it, warningsthat can be easily fixed. Please devs,
Yep. Seems auth strats didn't get much attention yet. Just committed
some improvements.
Eelco
On 9/4/06, Stefan Lindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The current javadoc and implementation of isPageAuthorized has an annonymous
> class as parameter. Shouldn't it be a parameterized class since all
On 9/4/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> shish, it wasnt supposed to be checked in yet, my bad
:) Fair enough.
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly wi
should we let our property models access to private fields?often i have constructs likeclass MyPage { private String str; new PropertyModel(this, "str");}
it sucks to have public getters and setters for "str" because it breaks encapsulation and beacuse i hate that they take up space in
I'd be +1 for that. Now that Hibernate, Spring, etc all allow access
to private fields, I wouldn't feel bad about supporting that.
Eelco
On 9/4/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> should we let our property models access to private fields?
>
> often i have constructs like
>
> class My
I'm +1 too.
-Matej
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> I'd be +1 for that. Now that Hibernate, Spring, etc all allow access
> to private fields, I wouldn't feel bad about supporting that.
>
> Eelco
>
>
> On 9/4/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> should we let our property models access to pr
i am working on an app that uses wicket and remoting, so i need to
do validation in wicket and in the business layer. the problem is that
our validators do not translate well into the business layer, and i
hate to write them twice. i can do all the validation in the service
layer, but then it is no
+1
Juergen
On 9/5/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm +1 too.
>
> -Matej
>
> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> > I'd be +1 for that. Now that Hibernate, Spring, etc all allow access
> > to private fields, I wouldn't feel bad about supporting that.
> >
> > Eelco
> >
> >
> > On 9/4/06, Igor Vay
14 matches
Mail list logo
