You might want to take a look at a project I created several years ago that works pretty much like this. I still find it occasionally useful, although most of my frontends are GWT and javascript these days:
http://tagonist.tigris.org/ It lets you use JSP files as controllers but keeps your Java code nice and tidy. Super-simple. Jeff On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Aaron Freeman <aaron.free...@layerz.com> wrote: > Yes, that's exactly right. In several instances we have many > controllers that are written in JSP (pure JSTL code), that <c:import> > our models (also in this case JSPs) and also <c:import> our views. > > Works great! > > The upside to it is: a) easier to code -- people with limited Java > expertise can modify the controllers if they are not too complex (and > rarely are), and b) you can change your controllers on the fly without > having to restart Resin (primary reason we do this). > > Aaron > > > On 5/7/2010 5:05 PM, Rachel McConnell wrote: >> This comment isn't helpful I know but I am very curious about this. >> The code you quoted is a tag library call using the EL. How is that >> not part of the UI? Are you writing controllers in JSP somehow? >> >> Rachel >> >> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Aaron Freeman<aaron.free...@layerz.com> >> wrote: >> >>> This isn't in the UI layer. This is in a controller. At any rate there is >>> a simple work around, but this sure doesn't seem like it should be >>> generating an error. If a property doesn't exist on an object it sure seems >>> like the test for empty=true should work, and not throw a runtime error. >>> >>> At any rate there are easy workarounds in this case but workarounds make the >>> code uglier. >>> >>> Aaron >>> >>> >>> On 5/7/2010 3:57 PM, Jon Stevens wrote: >>> >>> I don't know if there is a way and it isn't something I'd depend on in the >>> UI layer. Think of [class] like you'd think of an interface. You really >>> should only put implementations of interfaces into the context. Otherwise, >>> I'd consider putting a Map in there for the effect you want. >>> jon >>> >>> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Aaron Freeman<aaron.free...@layerz.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Bummer, what's the proper way to test if a property exists then, since >>>> ${!empty [class].[property]} isn't the correct way? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Aaron >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/7/2010 3:07 PM, Jon Stevens wrote: >>>> >>>> That is what JBoss does, so I'd say that Caucho fixed a bug. >>>> jon >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Aaron Freeman<aaron.free...@layerz.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> We are system testing Resin 4.0.6 with our old code base and found a >>>>> curiosity. The following code used to work, regardless of what "type" >>>>> "receipt" is: >>>>> >>>>> <c:if test="${!empty receipt.details}"> >>>>> >>>>> Under Resin 3.0.x if receipt was a HashMap and had a "details" property >>>>> then it would return "true". If it was a HashMap and did not have a >>>>> details property, it would correctly return false. And (most >>>>> importantly), if receipt was _any_ other class, including built in java >>>>> classes, it would just return false. With Resin 4.0.6 it now throws an >>>>> error: >>>>> >>>>> 'details' is an unknown bean property of 'java.math.BigDecimal' >>>>> >>>>> That's not the expected behavior is it? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Aaron >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > resin-interest mailing list > resin-interest@caucho.com > http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest > _______________________________________________ resin-interest mailing list resin-interest@caucho.com http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest
