On 5/5/06, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: May 5, 2006 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: SAF 1.3.x and legacy RequestProcessor
On 5/5/06, Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its probably academic, but since CRP extends RP then it seems
On 5/4/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/4/06, Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:07 AM -0700 5/4/06, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
Looking at 1.3 internals (at last) I've found that it contains both
ComposableRequestProcessor (CRP) and legacy RequestProcessor (RP). Is
this
Its probably academic, but since CRP extends RP then it seems
incorrect to deprecate the whole class with a view to removing in the
future. Wouldn't it be more correct to deprecate all the protected
methods (e.g. processActionCreate(), processActionForm etc.)?
Perhaps we should consider what the
-- Forwarded message --
From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: May 5, 2006 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: SAF 1.3.x and legacy RequestProcessor
To: Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/5/06, Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its probably academic, but since CRP extends RP
At 3:03 PM +0100 5/5/06, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On 5/5/06, Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its probably academic, but since CRP extends RP then it seems
incorrect to deprecate the whole class with a view to removing in the
future. Wouldn't it be more correct to deprecate all the
From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: May 5, 2006 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: SAF 1.3.x and legacy RequestProcessor
On 5/5/06, Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its probably academic, but since CRP extends RP then it seems
incorrect to deprecate the whole class with a view to removing
Looking at 1.3 internals (at last) I've found that it contains both
ComposableRequestProcessor (CRP) and legacy RequestProcessor (RP). Is
this duality really needed?
For a regular Struts user who does not extend RP, the new CRP should
work just like the old one. The only difference is the config
At 8:07 AM -0700 5/4/06, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
Looking at 1.3 internals (at last) I've found that it contains both
ComposableRequestProcessor (CRP) and legacy RequestProcessor (RP). Is
this duality really needed?
For a regular Struts user who does not extend RP, the new CRP should
work just
On 5/4/06, Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:07 AM -0700 5/4/06, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
Looking at 1.3 internals (at last) I've found that it contains both
ComposableRequestProcessor (CRP) and legacy RequestProcessor (RP). Is
this duality really needed?
For a regular Struts user who
