I'll be hitting the road in about 12 hours, but I'll be back on Saturday, and I'd be happy to finish this up then, if no one beats me to it.
Thanks for your help, Musachy . -Ted. On 12/27/06, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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]
