Thanks Musachy, patch applied. Regarding the result stuff, I will have some time over the weekend to include those XML/JSONResult stuff before the 2.0.2 release.
-Rainer > Oh, I get it now. Is it Friday already ? :) > > I have attached the patch for the autocompleter to WW-1529. > > musachy > > Martin Cooper wrote: >> On 11/30/06, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Where do you think we should put it? a tag? >> >> >> No, no. That would be worse. The generic serialisation code should be in >> some utility class somewhere, so that it can be used from wherever >> might be >> appropriate. A result implementation would be the first place that it >> would >> be used, but it may well be used in other places later (including >> application code). >> >> I have no idea. There are >>> also some comments that Don added that we should check out. >> >> >> Yes. I haven't had the time to read through the whole JIRA thing yet, >> though. >> >> -- >> Martin Cooper >> >> >> "I think this has promise. First, I'd like to see the incoming >>> parameters better integrated into the ActionContext. In particular, the >>> parameters should populate the parameters map in the ActionContext, and >>> OGNL should be used for the Action population rather than by custom >>> means. >>> >>> Also, it would be interesting to make the result selection happen >>> outside the Action somehow. For example, say you had an Action that >>> returned HTML. It would be interesting to somehow call that Action via >>> Ajax but get JSON back instead, without the Action having to return a >>> different result code. " >>> >>> Rainer, I'm going to submit my patch for the autocompleter the way it >>> is >>> now, and when we get this done, (if we do) then I will modify the >>> example, sounds good? >>> >>> regards >>> musachy >>> >>> Martin Cooper wrote: >>> > On 11/30/06, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Yeah, they are not tied to ajax at all, so they shouldn't have >>> "ajax" >>> in >>> >> the name if that is what you mean, but are you against having a JSON >>> >> result type that will take care of the serialization for you? >>> > >>> > >>> > Yes, I was cringing at the naming with AJAX in there. No, I'm not >>> against >>> > having a JSON result type, but the serialisation code itself should >>> > not be >>> > buried in there, because people might want to use that for something >>> > else ( >>> > e.g. embedding some JSON output within generated HTML). >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Martin Cooper >>> > >>> > >>> > regards >>> >> musachy >>> >> >>> >> Martin Cooper wrote: >>> >> > On 11/30/06, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Musachy and others, >>> >> >> sounds like we should finally add an AJAXResult... >>> >> >> There have been efforts to create an AjaxJSON and AjaxXML result >>> type >>> >> >> already. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Please, please decouple the notion of rendering / serialising to >>> JSON >>> >> and >>> >> > XML from "AJAX". They are completely unrelated. Both JSON and >>> XML are >>> >> > used >>> >> > much more widely than in just AJAX scenarios now. >>> >> > >>> >> > Also, note that there are lots of JSON serialisers out there. See >>> >> > http://json.org/ for a list. The json.org one is also public >>> domain. >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > Martin Cooper >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > So may be we should add this to the core of Struts2 now. >>> >> >> Have a look at http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1330 for >>> >> more >>> >> >> details. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> What do you think? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> -Rainer >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > I was finishing the autocompleter examples tonight (annoying >>> patch >>> >> >> coming >>> >> >> > soon:) ) and I have a couple of questions. The autocompleter >>> when >>> >> used >>> >> >> in >>> >> >> > the "ajax" theme needs the action to return a JSON name/value >>> list, >>> >> >> should >>> >> >> > we provide any easy way to generate the response from the >>> >> action? In >>> >> >> > showcase I'm using a freemaker template as an example, but >>> that's >>> >> >> going >>> >> >> to >>> >> >> > be a repetitive task for anyone using it. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The second question is a beginners question, if I'm writing an >>> >> action >>> >> >> that >>> >> >> > is going to be used on an ajax request, and I want to write my >>> >> >> response >>> >> >> > straight to the outputstream, I still need to return an string >>> from >>> >> >> > execute, >>> >> >> > and I get an error on the server log stating that there is no >>> >> "result" >>> >> >> > configured, what is the right way of doing this? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > regards >>> >> >> > musachy >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > -- >>> >> >> > "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> 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] >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
