Ted Husted wrote:
We might want to keep a straight-line mapping in the naming conventions, where
OpenSymphony -> Apache Struts
WebWork -> Action
A good reason to prefer "action-default.xml" to "struts-default.xml"
is that we want people to be able to use Struts Action 1 and Struts
Action 2 in t
On 4/19/06, Patrick Lightbody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Drop XW directly in to WW (ie: fork). This is Bob's proposal.
Just to clarify what I already said on the wiki page, I propose that
we make XWork an implementation detail, not part of our API. This
means creating a thin abstraction layer
+1 struts-action.xml
-
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=52373#52373
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PR
+1 for struts-action.xml
-
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=52352#52352
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAI
+1 for struts-action.xml
Bob Lee wrote:
I vote for "struts-action.xml".
Bob
On 4/19/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We might want to keep a straight-line mapping in the naming conventions, where
OpenSymphony -> Apache Struts
WebWork -> Action
A good reason to prefer "action-def
+1 to your +1
--
James Mitchell
On Apr 19, 2006, at 3:10 PM, Don Brown wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
I vote for "struts-action.xml".
+1
Don
Bob
On 4/19/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We might want to keep a straight-line mapping in the naming
conventions, where
OpenSymphony -> A
Bob Lee wrote:
I vote for "struts-action.xml".
+1
Don
Bob
On 4/19/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We might want to keep a straight-line mapping in the naming conventions, where
OpenSymphony -> Apache Struts
WebWork -> Action
A good reason to prefer "action-default.xml" to "stru
I vote for "struts-action.xml".
Bob
On 4/19/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We might want to keep a straight-line mapping in the naming conventions, where
>
> OpenSymphony -> Apache Struts
> WebWork -> Action
>
> A good reason to prefer "action-default.xml" to "struts-default.xml"
> i
We might want to keep a straight-line mapping in the naming conventions, where
OpenSymphony -> Apache Struts
WebWork -> Action
A good reason to prefer "action-default.xml" to "struts-default.xml"
is that we want people to be able to use Struts Action 1 and Struts
Action 2 in the same application
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
We can definitely start by reading "struts.xml" rather than "xwork.xml".
+1, works great with struts-default.xml
Don
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAI
OK, I read this whole thread and will provide my general comments here and my
specific comments about Bob's wiki entry on the wiki itself.
First, we need to recognize there are a few different proposals here:
1) Drop XW directly in to WW (ie: fork). This is Bob's proposal.
2) Move XW over to Str
Carreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: dev@struts.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:38:10 AM
Subject: Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
I've added my comments inline...
As an aside, any chance of us getting Confluence set up? It's painful going
back to a regular wiki :-)
>
I've added my comments inline...
As an aside, any chance of us getting Confluence set up? It's painful going
back to a regular wiki :-)
> On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'll set up the "rough spots" page.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/struts/RoughSpots?action=show
>
> Bob
--- "Pilgrim, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> As a new user of WebWork 2.2 I dont see much of
> XWork except for the
> xwork.xml file. So I agree totally. This is not to
> say that as an
> advanced user, one day I might decide to exploit an
> XWork feature.
Actions itself, parameter settin
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Bob Lee
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:56 PM
> To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
>
>
> On 4/18/06, Ted Husted <[
Bob this is really a great list for doing some house cleaning.
-
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=52211#52211
-
This is a great list, thanks for taking the time to put it up. I may not agree with everything, but it is sure to spark
conversation :)
Don
Bob Lee wrote:
On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll set up the "rough spots" page.
http://wiki.apache.org/struts/RoughSpots?action=show
On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll set up the "rough spots" page.
http://wiki.apache.org/struts/RoughSpots?action=show
Bob
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PR
You mean we have committers who aren't running 1.5 yet? For shame. ;)
I'll set up the "rough spots" page.
Bob
On 4/18/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When a committer votes +1 on a release, it's taken to mean that the
> committer is using the release in production his or herself, and
On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without saying whether we should support 1.4 or not, realistically
> we're talking about Struts 2.0.0 in production some time after August
> depending how long it takes users to port their applications, not
> right now, at this moment, right? JDK 1.6
This has been a topic I've been wondering about for a while: would it be possible to move to Java 5, then use a tool
such as Retroweaver [1] to provide Java 1.4 support? I'm not prepared to completely abandon Java 1.4 users, but Bob
does make some good points regarding the concern for falling to
On 4/18/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would tend to disagree. I feel that the separate of concerns between
> XWork and a web application front end are important. I don't believe
> it would be helpful to start lumping things back together again.
Providing Struts users with a complet
t;
To: Struts Developers List
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:24:06 PM
Subject: Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
I would tend to disagree. I feel that the separate of concerns between
XWork and a web application front end are important. I don't believe
it would be helpful to start lumping thi
On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No... but I do think we should shield Struts users from the XWork
> API/documentation as much as possible (i.e. a lot more than WebWork
> does). I _suppose_ it's nice that you can drop down to XWork and do
> non-web things, but I don't think we need
Ted Husted wrote:
On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It will be harder for me at first, but I'd
like to see us take this opportunity to smooth over some of the rough
spots so we don't have to break compatibility again down the road.
It would be helpful if someone started a wiki pag
On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It will be harder for me at first, but I'd
> like to see us take this opportunity to smooth over some of the rough
> spots so we don't have to break compatibility again down the road.
It would be helpful if someone started a wiki page to itemize the
On 4/18/06, Jason Carreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ahh, you're talking about forking it and copying the source into Struts
> Action 2?
No... but I do think we should shield Struts users from the XWork
API/documentation as much as possible (i.e. a lot more than WebWork
does). I _suppose_ it's
> On 4/18/06, Jason Carreira
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This doesn't concern XWork itself.
> >
> > Huh? I thought we were talking about moving it?
>
> I didn't say anything about moving it.
>
Ahh, you're talking about forking it and copying the source into Struts Action
2?
-(as many a
On 4/18/06, Jason Carreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This doesn't concern XWork itself.
>
> Huh? I thought we were talking about moving it?
I didn't say anything about moving it.
> Okay, so make your Action implement ServletContextAware, ServletRequestAware,
> etc.
I was specifically think
> Bob Lee wrote:
> > Also, how do the tags relate to JSTL? Are we just
> going to ignore
> > JSTL? Or are we going to use JSTL for JSP with some
> WebWork-specific
> > extensions and the WebWork tags for other template
> engines?
>
> I personally prefer the latter option. Struts has
> always trie
> This doesn't concern XWork itself.
>
Huh? I thought we were talking about moving it?
> The question is can Struts continue to depend on
> XWork externally and
> actually be cohesive? I want one comprehensive
> manual. I don't
> necesarily want the servlet API to be readily
> available, but whe
Ian Roughley wrote:
Don Brown wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
Also, how do the tags relate to JSTL? Are we just going to ignore
JSTL? Or are we going to use JSTL for JSP with some WebWork-specific
extensions and the WebWork tags for other template engines?
I personally prefer the latter option. Struts
Don Brown wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
Also, how do the tags relate to JSTL? Are we just going to ignore
JSTL? Or are we going to use JSTL for JSP with some WebWork-specific
extensions and the WebWork tags for other template engines?
I personally prefer the latter option. Struts has always tried to
On 4/17/06, Gabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's telling that the lion's share of code related issues we've discussed so
> far about Struts
> 2 on this list (Annotation driven actions, pluggability of expression
> language, use of "dev
> mode", etc., etc.) are really issues that should be broug
ine that relationship.
Now, the last time I wrote a message like this, i was told to get the XWork
developers involved, so I think I will go do that now. ;-)
Gabe
- Original Message
From: Jason Carreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: dev@struts.apache.org
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:
Bob Lee wrote:
Also, how do the tags relate to JSTL? Are we just going to ignore
JSTL? Or are we going to use JSTL for JSP with some WebWork-specific
extensions and the WebWork tags for other template engines?
I personally prefer the latter option. Struts has always tried to work well with sta
This doesn't concern XWork itself.
The question is can Struts continue to depend on XWork externally and
actually be cohesive? I want one comprehensive manual. I don't
necesarily want the servlet API to be readily available, but when I
need it, I'd prefer not to go through a ThreadLocal. Having tw
Whether XWork is moved to Apache or not, I 100% agree the docs and API should be in a single location. WebWork has been
doing this for a while, and I think we should continue the practice. The relationship between Action 2 and XWork could
be like Action 1 and Commons Validator - the user doesn'
-1 to moving it over. XWork is not just part of WebWork, it's used other
places.
You're more than welcome to help do the cleanup in XWork for a 2.0 release.
-
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?thr
+1 to moving it over. I don't care about package naming, but agree the
Javadocs should be in the same location.
Matt
On 4/17/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the plan for XWork? I would recommend against keeping it as a
> third party dependency and for copying the necessary code ov
What's the plan for XWork? I would recommend against keeping it as a
third party dependency and for copying the necessary code over into
the Struts repository and refactoring it (clean up exception handling,
remove statics, better integrate APIs, etc.). We could keep the Java
packages separate (if
41 matches
Mail list logo