Yep. The only thing I'm waiting for at this point is getting the
MyFaces jars up on ibiblio so that both Maven and Ant builds will work
without intervention. Then I'll fix the build files and tag and roll
the Chain 1.0 release.
Matthias over in the MyFaces team has said he'll try to put together a
request to the Maven team tomorrow, Saturday. I would have tried to
put it together myself, but I don't know which jars to make the
request for, or where to find them (and don't really have the time to
go digging right now).
--
Martin Cooper
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 06:39:06 -0600, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My one comment this morning is that is looks like Martin is getting ready to
> tag and roll a release, so of course we should wait for that to happen before
> committing any changes.
>
> If for any reason Martin is tied up, and people are chaffing to commit, of
> course I'd be happy to step up.
>
> -Ted.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:40:31 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
> > In a discussion on the struts-user list, I got around to describing
> > a configuration format which made me wonder if folks would tolerate
> > some kind of expression evaluation engine in chain.
> >
> >
> > The musing repeated below:
> >
> > At 1:57 PM -0600 12/2/04, Joe Germuska wrote:
> >> I think you could find the view processor command by using the
> >> standard Chain "lookup action". Well, out of the box, its
> >> "nameKey" property would depend on some String value being placed
> >> into the context under a certain key, and as it is now, we're
> >> talking about using a String property of an Object in the context
> >> under a certain key. If we gave the LookupCommand an expression
> >> language (JEXL, perhaps?), then we could do something like this,
> >> which seems cool:
> >>
> >> <command
> >> className="org.apache.commons.chain.generic.LookupCommand"
> >> catalogName="struts-view-preprocess"
> >> nameKey="${context.forward.name}" optional="true"/>
> >>
> >> or possibly work some magic to make the "context" prefix assumed.
> >> Anyone have an opinion about adding a JEXL dependency to Chain,
> >> or whether this would be best left to a Struts subclass of
> >> LookupCommand?
> >>
> >
> > Ideas? I'm not sure right now of the scope of this proposal -- is
> > it just for the LookupCommand? Is it somehow implemented more
> > widely? How can you do that when Chain is first-and-foremost an API?
> >
> > I can certainly see some of these questions leading folks to throw
> > up their hands and say "let's just keep it simple." There's no
> > critical reason to add this dependency to the core, but when you
> > think about the expressive power it would provide in the config
> > files, it seems pretty cool.
> >
> > Joe
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
