Re: [ajaxtags] Date picker

[Musachy Barroso]

I'm checking an issue reported on the user list, but overall they should 
be working. Everybody seems to agree with the plugin idea, and as long 
as there is a brave soul willing to apply my patches :), I will continue 
to work on them.

musachy
Ted Husted wrote:
I don't mind breaking backward compatability for the date/time picker
tags, so long as we document the changes.

Along the lines of what Don mentioned, my own preference would be to
create a struts-dojo plugin that separated the AJAX code from the
core. I just don't know whether that would work, and whether anyone
has the time and energy to make it happen.

In the meantime, if we can make the Dojo date/time pickers work,
albeit differently,and we can document the syntax change, then I would
favor doing it now, so that we can stabalize the build.

-Ted.


On 12/27/06, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, the date/time picker. The main difference is that WW did the date
formatting, now we are just passing the value straight to Dojo, who uses
RFC 3339 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3339.html)

musachy

Ted Husted wrote:
> Are we just talking about the Ajax date/time picker?
>
> Ian, who did a lot of the original WW coding, seemed to think that the
> Ajax tags were not widely used yet. If we were going to break with the
> WW Ajax tags, this would be a good time. The key question is whether
> we can document the differences.
>
> -Ted.
>
> On 12/27/06, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The problem with the datepicker is worst than I thought, Dojo's
>> DatePicker and TimePicker are way different that the ones that WW 
had.
>> In order too keep it backward compatible, the best thing we can do is
>> resurrect the "DatePicker.js" and "TimePicker.js" from WW, instead of
>> using Dojo directly, like we do now. I will start to dig back and get
>> the old files.
>>
>> musachy
>>
>>
>> Ted Husted wrote:
>> > OK, it's in r490569
>> >
>> > Any feedback on WW-1573 -  Handling of If-Modified-Since header for
>> > static content
>> >
>> > Should we apply that too?
>> >
>> > -Ted.
>> >
>> > On 12/27/06, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> When you apply the one for the autocompleter; I will create one 
for
>> >> datepicker against head svn, and we'll just ignore the old one.
>> >>
>> >> regards
>> >> musachy
>> >>
>> >> Ted Husted wrote:
>> >> > I tried to apply the patch, but there were a great many 
conflicts,
>> >> > perhaps because of other changes.  I'm happy to apply as many
>> patches
>> >> > as we need to bring the Ajax theme up to speed, but I don't know
>> dojo
>> >> > well enough to resolve conflucts with overlapping changes.
>> >> >
>> >> > -Ted.
>> >> >
>> >> > On 12/27/06, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> It seems like the patch for reverting the datepicker to its old
>> >> name was
>> >> >> never applied.
>> (https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1555) Does
>> >> >> any one know what is the status of this one?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> regards
>> >> >> musachy
>> >
>> > 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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]