Heck, Tapestry is way ahead of JSF, etc. I have no idea why JSF is seen as new when Tapestry is ahead of the game.
On Mar 11, 2005 8:34 PM, Tak Yoshida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rick, > > I really appreciated that you have looked at my small idea. > Please write or see the sample code. > You must get something from it, if you like page oriented. > OzStruts is totally different from other page oriented framework, > because it runs on current Struts, meaning it's simple. > I'm personally not a big fan for event driven approach with page level > refresh mechanism. > If I want it, I would see Echo, Flex, Lazslo, or something that is totally > event driven. > > Frank, I have to say somethig about OzStruts, beacuse you might > mis-understand it. > This is totally Struts, and no additional config at all, > just a standard struts-config.xml only, and even no new element like you > suggested. > Rick also worried about the leaning effort, > but in this sense, OzStruts is more natuaral approach for Struts developer. > and I believe it's less effort than leaning tiles. > You can just consolidate Actions and Forms into one Page class for each jsp > file, that it! > > Rick, your analysis could be true, 90% is cleanly done by standard Struts. > but we have to know that 10% of requirements not cover thestandard Struts > could cause 90% of maintenance cost, too. > > Tak > > Frank W. Zammetti wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Glad your on board :) I am going to work on it tonight, with a little > >luck I can get at least a first iteration done and post in Bugzilla > >tomorrow. Then we'll see if it passes muster for real :) > > > >I know what you mean about keeping up with posts... I feel like I'm > >constantly missing things :) > > > >-- > >Frank W. Zammetti > >Founder and Chief Software Architect > >Omnytex Technologies > >http://www.omnytex.com > > > >Rick Reumann wrote: > >> Frank W. Zammetti wrote the following on 3/7/2005 4:07 PM: > >> > >>> No argument here! Hence the reason I didn't want to add a new config > >>> file > >>> at all... my solution centers on the idea of adding one new element to an > >>> Action mapping, <actionSetup> (although, as I wrote that just now, I > >>> think > >>> <mappingSetup> maybe makes more sense... perhaps even making these > >>> attributes of a <forward> makes more sense... eh, thinking out loud > >>> now!). > >>> I doubt very many people would find this onerous. > >> > >> > >> This would be nice! If it were right in the same struts config file, I'd > >> vote for this approach for sure. Nice suggestion. Sorry I missed your > >> presentation of this. I can't keep up with all the posts on this list > >> any more:) > >> > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > Tak Yoshida mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
