I vote beta, because I haven't had (and won't have) time to test
it, and I see no reason to rush to call it GA. I thought the whole
point of the new releasing scheme was to allow us to not have to cut
a new release if beta testing truly demonstrated release quality.
I wouldn't veto GA, but
-
Based on its quality, the Struts 1.2.4 build should be classified as:
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[X] General Availability (GA)
-
So far, it's all good.
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
EdgeTech, Inc.
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx
- Original Message -
Jackie,
as a BASIC authentication example for Tomcat:
1.:
create a new role, and user in TOMCAT_HOME/conf/tomcat-users.xml
?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?
tomcat-users
...
role rolename=helpdesk_standard/
...
user username=helpdesk password=helpdesk roles=helpdesk_standard/
...
I was actually thinking of playing around with this idea, so that the
way the method is determined is refactored out, similar to how you
(Niall) changed ValidatorActionForm.
Specifically, I'm interested in figuring out if we can refactor it in
such a way that it becomes useful to other Action
What SimpleDispatchAction does not duplicate is the logic of
DispatchAction vis-a-vis the view in the MVC. There is no need at all
for a getParameter() method in SimpleDispatchAction. The logic if very
different. In essence, DispatchAction substitutes the parameter of
ActionMapping for the
Date: 2004-09-16T13:04:07
Editor: ArnaudBuisine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wiki: Apache Struts Wiki
Page: StrutsTraining
URL: http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsTraining
no comment
Change Log:
--
@@ -9,10
I don't see anything radically different in SimpleDispatchAction to the
other DispatchAction flavours - it just uses a slightly different mechanim
for determining the method name to execute and it doesn't throw an exception
if the parameter is null.
Looking at it, it seemed to me that factoring
Hubert,
Is this what has already happened in DispatchAction with the getMethodName()
method that has been added since Struts 1.2.0?
Maybe I've mis-understood what you're saying.
Niall
- Original Message -
From: Hubert Rabago [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL
Niall Pemberton wrote:
I don't see anything radically different in SimpleDispatchAction to the
other DispatchAction flavours - it just uses a slightly different mechanim
for determining the method name to execute and it doesn't throw an exception
if the parameter is null.
Thatt slightly different
I'm not using Struts in production myself right now, so I'm going to abstain from
voting in favor of them that do. :)
I do still plan to help support the release once it is out.
As to the voting in general ...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:09:18 -0500, Joe Germuska wrote:
I wouldn't veto GA, but I'm
Hubert Rabago wrote:
public ActionForward execute(_usual_params) {
RequestUtils.dispatch(this, _usual_params);
}
This will work fine for SimpleDispatchAction, in fact I LOVE IT and I am
going to do it, if you don't, but this would not replace DispatchAction,
LookupDispatchAction or
Tom Drake wrote:
It appears that what we have are different strategies for determining the
method name.
Yes! *_/The existing classes use DIFFERENT DATA AND DIFFERENT LOGIC to
get the method name/_*. The ONLY thing SimpleDispatchAction and the
present classes have in common is that they do
Date: 2004-09-16T17:35:52
Editor: MichaelMcGrady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wiki: Apache Struts Wiki
Page: StrutsCatalogSimpleDispatchAction
URL: http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsCatalogSimpleDispatchAction
no comment
Change Log:
Date: 2004-09-16T17:37:50
Editor: MichaelMcGrady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wiki: Apache Struts Wiki
Page: StrutsCatalogSimpleDispatchAction
URL: http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsCatalogSimpleDispatchAction
no comment
Change Log:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
You're making the assumption that everyone wants to do things the way you
do - SimpleDispatchAction doesn't replace any of them if people don't.
Personally (if I used them :-)) MappingDispatchAction looks good to me for
most use cases or if I didn't want to specify anything
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31270.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31270.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Date: 2004-09-16T18:40:28
Editor: NiallPemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wiki: Apache Struts Wiki
Page: StrutsCatalogSimpleDispatchAction
URL: http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsCatalogSimpleDispatchAction
no comment
Change Log:
Michael,
Quick comments on your suggestion. Please don't mistake the brevity for
abruptness - just lack of time on my part.
I agree with pretty much everything Niall said in his previous reply, with
the following 2 cents-worth.
1. Big reason for not including this as a standard action is the
IMHO DispatchActions are more of a programmer convenience, than an
additional level of controller. I don't use them to dynamically select the
action at runtime (the job of the controller), just to let me organize code
together and avoid duplication where the code seems to belong together.
(e.g.
Hi, Niall,
Thanks for the discussion. I have a few things to say on it which might
be of interest. I will be brief.
* It doesn't do EXACTLY the same as MappingDispatchAction or DispatchAction
(I'm ignoring LookupDispatchAction 'coz I don't like it). It almost does the
same as
Martin Cooper wrote:
IMHO, dispatch actions, whatever flavour, are a bad idea in the first
place. They are essentially second-level controllers. What for? You
already have a perfectly good controller in the Struts ActionServlet,
so why have your own additional levels of controller below that? It
Steve Raeburn wrote:
Quick comments on your suggestion. Please don't mistake the brevity for
abruptness - just lack of time on my part.
I don't. I appreciate all this feedback and discussion. I like the
idea of ideas being honed and forged with discussion and criticism. It
is a good thing
Steve Raeburn wrote:
IMHO DispatchActions are more of a programmer convenience, than an
additional level of controller. I don't use them to dynamically select the
action at runtime (the job of the controller), just to let me organize code
together and avoid duplication where the code seems to
24 matches
Mail list logo
