Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
Have we opened a ticket for the dojo-plugin? I'd like to close WW-1477 as a related issued. * https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1477 -Ted. On 12/27/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, let's put this into a formal proposal. I propose that we extract any Dojo-related tags and behaviors into a new tag library. This new library could extend the old tags for the purposes of adding Dojo-related attributes, however, it should be its own logical tag library. We should keep the old themeable tags, but look to speed up the simple theme, probably through a Java rendering engine. The new Dojo-based tags will contain: - The date picker - The rich text editor - Any remote div-loading tags - Extensions of existing tags to add new Dojo-related attributes and rendering. If it isn't possible to extend the existing tags/components and add new parameters, then we'll make it so. - Dojo. We'll pull all the Dojo files out of core. We will be left with the original, themeable tags. These tags will still use the theme engines and we'll keep the xhtml theme, but write or include a simple tooltip Javascript library to we don't need to import all of Dojo. Ideally, I'd like to see the simple tags rendered with Java for superior performance, but that part of the proposal can wait. These tags will retain as much as backwards compatibility as possible, with the exception of the missing Ajax theme. Any ajax functionality that used DWR will remain in the old tags and be moved to the xhtml theme. I'd like to move on this quickly and have it completed within two weeks. Thoughts? Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [s2] Time for Struts 2.1.x ? (was Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization)
From: Don Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > How much overhead does the default interceptor stack introduce? > Very, very little if the interceptors behave properly. Fair enough; that was my assumption. It's low-hanging fruit for out-of-the-box performance if there's stuff in there some folks won't use. Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [s2] Time for Struts 2.1.x ? (was Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization)
A user found a pretty big bug in XWork 2 that will need to be fixed before it can go final. I'm working on it now and should hopefully be done with it in the next few days. I think for this release Rainer will use the Struts 2-style release process so we could upgrade the quality if we are happy with it after the release. Afterwards, I think branching for 2.1.x is a good idea and I agree with the feature set. Don Ted Husted wrote: I'd be happy to roll Struts 2.0.3 as soon as there's a new XWork 2. Then perhaps we should dub the head 2.1.x for the Ajax tag reorganization, since there will be backward compatibility concerns. If we need any more releases in the Struts 2.0.x series, we can always go back and branch at 2.0.3. There are a number of issues slotted for 2.0.3/2.0.x, but they are mainly feature requests that could be rolled over to 2.1.0/2.1.x. I do wonder if we should bring up Don's Java template plugin from the sandbox, and utilize Bob's improved ValueStack, to see if S2 performance with the *simple* theme might be in the same ballpark with S1, apples to apples. Obviously, S2/WW2 does perform well enough in production: witness Confluence and Jive. But, we need to recognize that the bloggers will be all over the benchmark numbers, and we might want to be proactive. -Ted. On 1/3/07, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Another update: let's put this off till we get a GA release. Unfortunately, it looks like it will take more time that I have due to the way the dojo code is embedded in even the simple theme. Another issue is how the new tags would extend the old. In case of ones that add a bunch of new properties, like div, currently they extend this abstractcallingui something bean. Well, if the new tag exteded the normal Div component, it wouldn't be able to extend this other bean, which has all the new properties. Basically, this means there will be a bunch of copy/pasted code both in Components and JSP tags. XWork 2 is looking like it will go final any day now, so let's push for a GA Struts 2 release next week. Don - 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]
Re: [s2] Time for Struts 2.1.x ? (was Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization)
Dave Newton wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Obviously, S2/WW2 does perform well enough in production: witness Confluence and Jive. But, we need to recognize that the bloggers will be all over the benchmark numbers, and we might want to be proactive. Darn bloggers. How much overhead does the default interceptor stack introduce? I wonder if all of them would be necessary by default, since some add functionality not present OOTB in S1... Very, very little if the interceptors behave properly. However, a thorough review would be a good idea before we shoot for GA. Of course, you have the option of replacing the interceptor easily for your own application if you'd like. Don Dave - 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]
Re: [s2] Time for Struts 2.1.x ? (was Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization)
Don't forget about this: http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=52734&tstart=0&start=15 Still a work in progress, but theoretically this will allow us to plug in MVEL. (Or anything else for that matter) Tom David H. DeWolf wrote: Ted Husted wrote: I'd be happy to roll Struts 2.0.3 as soon as there's a new XWork 2. Then perhaps we should dub the head 2.1.x for the Ajax tag reorganization, since there will be backward compatibility concerns. +1 I do wonder if we should bring up Don's Java template plugin +1 from the sandbox, and utilize Bob's improved ValueStack, Does the improved ValueStack implement all of the features of Ognl, such as method invocation, etc. . ., or does it just implement the basics (property access, etc. . .)? David - 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]
Re: [s2] Time for Struts 2.1.x ? (was Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization)
Ted Husted wrote: I'd be happy to roll Struts 2.0.3 as soon as there's a new XWork 2. Then perhaps we should dub the head 2.1.x for the Ajax tag reorganization, since there will be backward compatibility concerns. +1 I do wonder if we should bring up Don's Java template plugin +1 from the sandbox, and utilize Bob's improved ValueStack, Does the improved ValueStack implement all of the features of Ognl, such as method invocation, etc. . ., or does it just implement the basics (property access, etc. . .)? David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [s2] Time for Struts 2.1.x ? (was Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Obviously, S2/WW2 does perform well enough in production: witness > Confluence and Jive. But, we need to recognize that the bloggers will > be all over the benchmark numbers, and we might want to be proactive. Darn bloggers. How much overhead does the default interceptor stack introduce? I wonder if all of them would be necessary by default, since some add functionality not present OOTB in S1... Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[s2] Time for Struts 2.1.x ? (was Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization)
I'd be happy to roll Struts 2.0.3 as soon as there's a new XWork 2. Then perhaps we should dub the head 2.1.x for the Ajax tag reorganization, since there will be backward compatibility concerns. If we need any more releases in the Struts 2.0.x series, we can always go back and branch at 2.0.3. There are a number of issues slotted for 2.0.3/2.0.x, but they are mainly feature requests that could be rolled over to 2.1.0/2.1.x. I do wonder if we should bring up Don's Java template plugin from the sandbox, and utilize Bob's improved ValueStack, to see if S2 performance with the *simple* theme might be in the same ballpark with S1, apples to apples. Obviously, S2/WW2 does perform well enough in production: witness Confluence and Jive. But, we need to recognize that the bloggers will be all over the benchmark numbers, and we might want to be proactive. -Ted. On 1/3/07, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Another update: let's put this off till we get a GA release. Unfortunately, it looks like it will take more time that I have due to the way the dojo code is embedded in even the simple theme. Another issue is how the new tags would extend the old. In case of ones that add a bunch of new properties, like div, currently they extend this abstractcallingui something bean. Well, if the new tag exteded the normal Div component, it wouldn't be able to extend this other bean, which has all the new properties. Basically, this means there will be a bunch of copy/pasted code both in Components and JSP tags. XWork 2 is looking like it will go final any day now, so let's push for a GA Struts 2 release next week. Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
Another update: let's put this off till we get a GA release. Unfortunately, it looks like it will take more time that I have due to the way the dojo code is embedded in even the simple theme. Another issue is how the new tags would extend the old. In case of ones that add a bunch of new properties, like div, currently they extend this abstractcallingui something bean. Well, if the new tag exteded the normal Div component, it wouldn't be able to extend this other bean, which has all the new properties. Basically, this means there will be a bunch of copy/pasted code both in Components and JSP tags. XWork 2 is looking like it will go final any day now, so let's push for a GA Struts 2 release next week. Don On 12/30/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Quick update: The dojo separation is looking easier than I thought. I plan to finish it tomorrow, however, it requires the latest xwork so we should probably put it after 2.0.2. It is looking pretty good for plugins that want to create a new struts-dependent tag library and want their tags to work in JSP, Velocity, and Freemarker. Don On 12/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the rule of thumb here should be if you require any additional > tag attributes, then the tag should be in its own tag library. If > followed fully, this would put our xhtml theme in its own tag library, > which if we could ignore backward compatibility, I'd do in a heartbeat. > I think the theme concept is still handy, just overused. > > Don > > Ian Roughley wrote: > > > I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be invoked? > > It will need to be a new tld with a new name space, right? Something > > like rather than - > > so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the functionality will > > be moved forward. > > > > /Ian > > > > > > David H. DeWolf wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Ted Husted wrote: > >> > >>> Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another > >>> prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would > >>> change. > >>> > >>> To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this > >>> change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta > >>> series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also > >>> open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. > >> > >> > >> I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through > >> the compatibility changes before we make a decision. > >> > >> In essence we're saying that this change is more important than > >> backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with those > >> repercussions. I'm on board with that. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> -T. > >>> > >>> On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are > abstracted from the plugin. > > At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended > by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It > seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core > tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. > > Ted Husted wrote: > > A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just > > be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and > JasperReports, > > and Tiles, so forth. > > > > On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we > were > >> going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in > 2.0.2 > >> -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . > >> > >> David > >>> > >>> > >>> - > >>> 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]
RE: [proposal] Tag reorganization
From: James Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mitchell > That's the wonderful or terrible thing about successful OSS projects, > you are kidding yourself if you think even 5% of the users are even > on a mailing list, much less that they will read every post. I know, right? I didn't even read *this* one! :D Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
Yeah, but given the problems that most people have at some stage of debugging with the tags, I thought there would be more traffic ;-) /Ian Mitchell James wrote: That's the wonderful or terrible thing about successful OSS projects, you are kidding yourself if you think even 5% of the users are even on a mailing list, much less that they will read every post. -- James Mitchell 678.910.8017 On Dec 29, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Ian Roughley wrote: If we go the from route, then it should be a simple global find and replace. I am surprised at such a large use of the tags though. I've asked more than a couple of times if anyone was using them, and there was never a response. /Ian Shekhar Yadav wrote: We are using 2.0.1 and we are using form/div with ajax based theme. Is it going to be major problem for us to migrate to new tags. If so what are you recommendations, we are in process of building and only half way through. I don't want to create 250 screens with tags that are going to be outdated by the time we release the app. - Shekhar -Original Message- From: Ian Roughley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:36 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization I'm torn - I like the fact that we are getting the ajax code out of the base, but especially for webwork->s2 upgrades there is going to be more work. The other thing is that 2.0.2 is still beta, and frankly I don't think there is that many people using the tags at the moment, so this would be a good time to make the change. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: That's what I'm imagining too. . .and we're agreeing that this incompatibility is a pill we have to swallow. Ian Roughley wrote: I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be invoked? It will need to be a new tld with a new name space, right? Something like rather than - so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the functionality will be moved forward. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would change. To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through the compatibility changes before we make a decision. In essence we're saying that this change is more important than backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with those repercussions. I'm on board with that. -T. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are abstracted from the plugin. At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. Ted Husted wrote: A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, and Tiles, so forth. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . David - 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] - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
That's the wonderful or terrible thing about successful OSS projects, you are kidding yourself if you think even 5% of the users are even on a mailing list, much less that they will read every post. -- James Mitchell 678.910.8017 On Dec 29, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Ian Roughley wrote: If we go the from route, then it should be a simple global find and replace. I am surprised at such a large use of the tags though. I've asked more than a couple of times if anyone was using them, and there was never a response. /Ian Shekhar Yadav wrote: We are using 2.0.1 and we are using form/div with ajax based theme. Is it going to be major problem for us to migrate to new tags. If so what are you recommendations, we are in process of building and only half way through. I don't want to create 250 screens with tags that are going to be outdated by the time we release the app. - Shekhar -Original Message- From: Ian Roughley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:36 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization I'm torn - I like the fact that we are getting the ajax code out of the base, but especially for webwork->s2 upgrades there is going to be more work. The other thing is that 2.0.2 is still beta, and frankly I don't think there is that many people using the tags at the moment, so this would be a good time to make the change. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: That's what I'm imagining too. . .and we're agreeing that this incompatibility is a pill we have to swallow. Ian Roughley wrote: I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be invoked? It will need to be a new tld with a new name space, right? Something like rather than > - so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the functionality will be moved forward. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would change. To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through the compatibility changes before we make a decision. In essence we're saying that this change is more important than backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with those repercussions. I'm on board with that. -T. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are abstracted from the plugin. At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. Ted Husted wrote: A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, and Tiles, so forth. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . David - 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] - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
That would work fine for the jsp tags, but we wouldn't/couldn't use the same prefix for Velocity and Freemarker tags since the prefix isn't user customizable. My quick glance through the tags shows that the Ajax tags are mainly their own tags, and at least as of yet, I haven't found a case where we'd keep the tag for the other themes and extend it for the ajax taglib, although it is entirely technically possible. Don Ted Husted wrote: On 12/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the rule of thumb here should be if you require any additional tag attributes, then the tag should be in its own tag library. If followed fully, this would put our xhtml theme in its own tag library, which if we could ignore backward compatibility, I'd do in a heartbeat. I think the theme concept is still handy, just overused. If the taglibs were proper supersets, then we could just change the prefix reference at the top of the page from struts-tags to struts-tags-xhtml or struts-tags-dojo. -Ted. - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
On 12/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the rule of thumb here should be if you require any additional tag attributes, then the tag should be in its own tag library. If followed fully, this would put our xhtml theme in its own tag library, which if we could ignore backward compatibility, I'd do in a heartbeat. I think the theme concept is still handy, just overused. If the taglibs were proper supersets, then we could just change the prefix reference at the top of the page from struts-tags to struts-tags-xhtml or struts-tags-dojo. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
Quick update: The dojo separation is looking easier than I thought. I plan to finish it tomorrow, however, it requires the latest xwork so we should probably put it after 2.0.2. It is looking pretty good for plugins that want to create a new struts-dependent tag library and want their tags to work in JSP, Velocity, and Freemarker. Don On 12/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the rule of thumb here should be if you require any additional tag attributes, then the tag should be in its own tag library. If followed fully, this would put our xhtml theme in its own tag library, which if we could ignore backward compatibility, I'd do in a heartbeat. I think the theme concept is still handy, just overused. Don Ian Roughley wrote: > I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be invoked? > It will need to be a new tld with a new name space, right? Something > like rather than - > so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the functionality will > be moved forward. > > /Ian > > > David H. DeWolf wrote: > >> >> >> Ted Husted wrote: >> >>> Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another >>> prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would >>> change. >>> >>> To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this >>> change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta >>> series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also >>> open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. >> >> >> I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through >> the compatibility changes before we make a decision. >> >> In essence we're saying that this change is more important than >> backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with those >> repercussions. I'm on board with that. >> >> >>> >>> -T. >>> >>> On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are abstracted from the plugin. At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. Ted Husted wrote: > A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just > be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, > and Tiles, so forth. > > On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were >> going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 >> -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . >> >> David >>> >>> >>> - >>> 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
I am sorry if I did not see previous notices.
These are typical tags that we are using:-
1. afterLoading="javascript: refreshWidgetContent('listDetails',
'${listDetailsURL}'); ">
2.
cssStyle="display:none" name="submit_next" theme="ajax"
resultDivId="pageContent"/>
3. And I am trying to still find stable use for where it
gets updated from onChange event of some other widget say select.
4. we want to use ajax but right now we are having issues
with it messing our layout.. so until we fix that we are not using it.
5. We will need tabbedPanel but we have not got there yet, so I don't
know of particular issues the changes might have for us.
So if you are saying that it is going to be simple replace of
to and likewise for all other use cases I
think we will be Ok.
- Shekhar
Musachy Barroso wrote:
On top of that, the div, tabbedPanel, anchor and submit tags will have
almost no changes (except the redundant "beforeLoading" and
"afterLoading" which I think we are going to drop). Only the
DatePicker and TimePicker will be different.
musachy
Ian Roughley wrote:
If we go the from
route, then it should be a simple global find and replace.
I am surprised at such a large use of the tags though. I've asked
more than a couple of times if anyone was using them, and there was
never a response.
/Ian
Shekhar Yadav wrote:
We are using 2.0.1 and we are using form/div with ajax based theme. Is
it going to be major problem for us to migrate to new tags. If so what
are you recommendations, we are in process of building and only half
way
through. I don't want to create 250 screens with tags that are going to
be outdated by the time we release the app.
- Shekhar
-Original Message-
From: Ian Roughley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December
28, 2006 7:36 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
I'm torn - I like the fact that we are getting the ajax code out of
the base, but especially for webwork->s2 upgrades there is going to
be more work. The other thing is that 2.0.2 is still beta, and
frankly I don't think there is that many people using the tags at
the moment, so this would be a good time to make the change.
/Ian
David H. DeWolf wrote:
That's what I'm imagining too. . .and we're agreeing that this
incompatibility is a pill we have to swallow.
Ian Roughley wrote:
I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be
invoked? It will need to be a new tld with a new name space,
right? Something
like rather than
- so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the
functionality will be moved forward.
/Ian
David H. DeWolf wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate
another
prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would
change.
To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this
change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta
series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might
also
open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags.
I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think
through the compatibility changes before we make a decision.
In essence we're saying that this change is more important than
backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with
those repercussions. I'm on board with that.
-T.
On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they
are
abstracted from the plugin.
At one point we talked about having a simple version which is
extended
by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific)
featuers. It
seems like the current names would be more likely be used for
the core
tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones.
Ted Husted wrote:
A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It
should
just
be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and
JasperReports,
and Tiles, so forth.
On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression
we were
going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility
in 2.0.2
-- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. .
.
David
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECT
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
On top of that, the div, tabbedPanel, anchor and submit tags will have almost no changes (except the redundant "beforeLoading" and "afterLoading" which I think we are going to drop). Only the DatePicker and TimePicker will be different. musachy Ian Roughley wrote: If we go the from route, then it should be a simple global find and replace. I am surprised at such a large use of the tags though. I've asked more than a couple of times if anyone was using them, and there was never a response. /Ian Shekhar Yadav wrote: We are using 2.0.1 and we are using form/div with ajax based theme. Is it going to be major problem for us to migrate to new tags. If so what are you recommendations, we are in process of building and only half way through. I don't want to create 250 screens with tags that are going to be outdated by the time we release the app. - Shekhar -Original Message- From: Ian Roughley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:36 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization I'm torn - I like the fact that we are getting the ajax code out of the base, but especially for webwork->s2 upgrades there is going to be more work. The other thing is that 2.0.2 is still beta, and frankly I don't think there is that many people using the tags at the moment, so this would be a good time to make the change. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: That's what I'm imagining too. . .and we're agreeing that this incompatibility is a pill we have to swallow. Ian Roughley wrote: I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be invoked? It will need to be a new tld with a new name space, right? Something like rather than - so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the functionality will be moved forward. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would change. To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through the compatibility changes before we make a decision. In essence we're saying that this change is more important than backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with those repercussions. I'm on board with that. -T. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are abstracted from the plugin. At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. Ted Husted wrote: A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, and Tiles, so forth. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . David - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
If we go the from route, then it should be a simple global find and replace. I am surprised at such a large use of the tags though. I've asked more than a couple of times if anyone was using them, and there was never a response. /Ian Shekhar Yadav wrote: We are using 2.0.1 and we are using form/div with ajax based theme. Is it going to be major problem for us to migrate to new tags. If so what are you recommendations, we are in process of building and only half way through. I don't want to create 250 screens with tags that are going to be outdated by the time we release the app. - Shekhar -Original Message- From: Ian Roughley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:36 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization I'm torn - I like the fact that we are getting the ajax code out of the base, but especially for webwork->s2 upgrades there is going to be more work. The other thing is that 2.0.2 is still beta, and frankly I don't think there is that many people using the tags at the moment, so this would be a good time to make the change. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: That's what I'm imagining too. . .and we're agreeing that this incompatibility is a pill we have to swallow. Ian Roughley wrote: I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be invoked? It will need to be a new tld with a new name space, right? Something like rather than - so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the functionality will be moved forward. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would change. To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through the compatibility changes before we make a decision. In essence we're saying that this change is more important than backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with those repercussions. I'm on board with that. -T. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are abstracted from the plugin. At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. Ted Husted wrote: A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, and Tiles, so forth. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . David - 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] - 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]
RE: [proposal] Tag reorganization
We are using 2.0.1 and we are using form/div with ajax based theme. Is it going to be major problem for us to migrate to new tags. If so what are you recommendations, we are in process of building and only half way through. I don't want to create 250 screens with tags that are going to be outdated by the time we release the app. - Shekhar -Original Message- From: Ian Roughley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:36 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization I'm torn - I like the fact that we are getting the ajax code out of the base, but especially for webwork->s2 upgrades there is going to be more work. The other thing is that 2.0.2 is still beta, and frankly I don't think there is that many people using the tags at the moment, so this would be a good time to make the change. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: > That's what I'm imagining too. . .and we're agreeing that this > incompatibility is a pill we have to swallow. > > Ian Roughley wrote: >> I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be invoked? >> It will need to be a new tld with a new name space, right? Something >> like rather than - >> so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the functionality >> will be moved forward. >> >> /Ian >> >> >> David H. DeWolf wrote: >>> >>> >>> Ted Husted wrote: >>>> Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another >>>> prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would >>>> change. >>>> >>>> To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this >>>> change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta >>>> series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also >>>> open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. >>> >>> I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through >>> the compatibility changes before we make a decision. >>> >>> In essence we're saying that this change is more important than >>> backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with >>> those repercussions. I'm on board with that. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -T. >>>> >>>> On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are >>>>> abstracted from the plugin. >>>>> >>>>> At one point we talked about having a simple version which is >>>>> extended >>>>> by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) >>>>> featuers. It >>>>> seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the >>>>> core >>>>> tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. >>>>> >>>>> Ted Husted wrote: >>>>> > A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should >>>>> just >>>>> > be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and >>>>> JasperReports, >>>>> > and Tiles, so forth. >>>>> > >>>>> > On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >> Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression >>>>> we were >>>>> >> going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility >>>>> in 2.0.2 >>>>> >> -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . >>>>> >> >>>>> >> David >>>> >>>> - >>>> 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
I think the rule of thumb here should be if you require any additional tag attributes, then the tag should be in its own tag library. If followed fully, this would put our xhtml theme in its own tag library, which if we could ignore backward compatibility, I'd do in a heartbeat. I think the theme concept is still handy, just overused. Don Ian Roughley wrote: I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be invoked? It will need to be a new tld with a new name space, right? Something like rather than - so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the functionality will be moved forward. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would change. To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through the compatibility changes before we make a decision. In essence we're saying that this change is more important than backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with those repercussions. I'm on board with that. -T. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are abstracted from the plugin. At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. Ted Husted wrote: > A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just > be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, > and Tiles, so forth. > > On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were >> going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 >> -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . >> >> David - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
I'm torn - I like the fact that we are getting the ajax code out of the base, but especially for webwork->s2 upgrades there is going to be more work. The other thing is that 2.0.2 is still beta, and frankly I don't think there is that many people using the tags at the moment, so this would be a good time to make the change. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: That's what I'm imagining too. . .and we're agreeing that this incompatibility is a pill we have to swallow. Ian Roughley wrote: I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be invoked? It will need to be a new tld with a new name space, right? Something like rather than - so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the functionality will be moved forward. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would change. To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through the compatibility changes before we make a decision. In essence we're saying that this change is more important than backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with those repercussions. I'm on board with that. -T. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are abstracted from the plugin. At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. Ted Husted wrote: > A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just > be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, > and Tiles, so forth. > > On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were >> going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 >> -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . >> >> David - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
That's what I'm imagining too. . .and we're agreeing that this incompatibility is a pill we have to swallow. Ian Roughley wrote: I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be invoked? It will need to be a new tld with a new name space, right? Something like rather than - so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the functionality will be moved forward. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would change. To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through the compatibility changes before we make a decision. In essence we're saying that this change is more important than backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with those repercussions. I'm on board with that. -T. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are abstracted from the plugin. At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. Ted Husted wrote: > A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just > be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, > and Tiles, so forth. > > On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were >> going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 >> -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . >> >> David - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be invoked? It will need to be a new tld with a new name space, right? Something like rather than - so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the functionality will be moved forward. /Ian David H. DeWolf wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would change. To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through the compatibility changes before we make a decision. In essence we're saying that this change is more important than backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with those repercussions. I'm on board with that. -T. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are abstracted from the plugin. At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. Ted Husted wrote: > A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just > be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, > and Tiles, so forth. > > On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were >> going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 >> -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . >> >> David - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
I'd suggest we don't include the static DatePicker and TimerPicker for 2.0.2, these are not the dropdown ones. They were not in WW, and they have some serious issues (Dojo code) which I would need more time to work on. That would leave us with the DropDownDateTimePicker, which we could split if you guys think is better. I have a patch for DropDownDateTimePicker, should I wait until the spin off? regards musachy Don Brown wrote: The only currently broken tag, in terms of 2.0.1 compatibility, is the date picker tag. It has been reimplemented and renamed. Am I missing any? Don David H. DeWolf wrote: Unless I'm missing something, that would mean we break backwards compatibility between 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 and then force another break between 2.0.2 and 2.0.3, right? I want to get 2.0.2 out as well, but that doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Why not roll back the tags to 2.0.1 compatibility and then release? David Ted Husted wrote: On 12/27/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to move on this quickly and have it completed within two weeks. Thoughts? Do we want to release Struts 2.0.2 with what we have already? A Struts 2.0.3 is already a foregone conclusion since XWork 2 is at RC1. -Ted. - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
Ted Husted wrote: Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would change. To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through the compatibility changes before we make a decision. In essence we're saying that this change is more important than backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with those repercussions. I'm on board with that. -T. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are abstracted from the plugin. At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. Ted Husted wrote: > A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just > be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, > and Tiles, so forth. > > On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were >> going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 >> -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . >> >> David - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would change. To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags. -T. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are abstracted from the plugin. At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. Ted Husted wrote: > A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just > be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, > and Tiles, so forth. > > On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were >> going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 >> -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . >> >> David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are abstracted from the plugin. At one point we talked about having a simple version which is extended by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific) featuers. It seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the core tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones. Ted Husted wrote: A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, and Tiles, so forth. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . David - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should just be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and JasperReports, and Tiles, so forth. On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression we were going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility in 2.0.2 -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . . David Don Brown wrote: The only currently broken tag, in terms of 2.0.1 compatibility, is the date picker tag. It has been reimplemented and renamed. Am I missing any? Don David H. DeWolf wrote: Unless I'm missing something, that would mean we break backwards compatibility between 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 and then force another break between 2.0.2 and 2.0.3, right? I want to get 2.0.2 out as well, but that doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Why not roll back the tags to 2.0.1 compatibility and then release? David Ted Husted wrote: On 12/27/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to move on this quickly and have it completed within two weeks. Thoughts? Do we want to release Struts 2.0.2 with what we have already? A Struts 2.0.3 is already a foregone conclusion since XWork 2 is at RC1. -Ted. - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
The only currently broken tag, in terms of 2.0.1 compatibility, is the date picker tag. It has been reimplemented and renamed. Am I missing any? Don David H. DeWolf wrote: Unless I'm missing something, that would mean we break backwards compatibility between 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 and then force another break between 2.0.2 and 2.0.3, right? I want to get 2.0.2 out as well, but that doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Why not roll back the tags to 2.0.1 compatibility and then release? David Ted Husted wrote: On 12/27/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to move on this quickly and have it completed within two weeks. Thoughts? Do we want to release Struts 2.0.2 with what we have already? A Struts 2.0.3 is already a foregone conclusion since XWork 2 is at RC1. -Ted. - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
Done and Done. Don Ted Husted wrote: Do you have any ideas about WW-1571 - the problem wth the action-redirect prefix? If we can resolve that, and figure out the problem with OptionTransfersSelect, I could roll 2.0.2 on Saturday. Or Monday, if we look close on this proposal. -Ted. On 12/27/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If we are talking a day or two, sure, let's get 2.0.2 out there. If we are talking two weeks, then I think we should move the dojo tags out. How about this - I plan to work on this sometime this week/weekend, so if you release 2.0.2 before I finish, then yes, let's release 2.0.2 first :) Don Ted Husted wrote: > On 12/27/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'd like to move on this quickly and have it completed within two weeks. >> >> Thoughts? > > Do we want to release Struts 2.0.2 with what we have already? > > A Struts 2.0.3 is already a foregone conclusion since XWork 2 is at RC1. > > -Ted. > > - > 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
Unless I'm missing something, that would mean we break backwards compatibility between 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 and then force another break between 2.0.2 and 2.0.3, right? I want to get 2.0.2 out as well, but that doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Why not roll back the tags to 2.0.1 compatibility and then release? David Ted Husted wrote: On 12/27/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to move on this quickly and have it completed within two weeks. Thoughts? Do we want to release Struts 2.0.2 with what we have already? A Struts 2.0.3 is already a foregone conclusion since XWork 2 is at RC1. -Ted. - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
Do you have any ideas about WW-1571 - the problem wth the action-redirect prefix? If we can resolve that, and figure out the problem with OptionTransfersSelect, I could roll 2.0.2 on Saturday. Or Monday, if we look close on this proposal. -Ted. On 12/27/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If we are talking a day or two, sure, let's get 2.0.2 out there. If we are talking two weeks, then I think we should move the dojo tags out. How about this - I plan to work on this sometime this week/weekend, so if you release 2.0.2 before I finish, then yes, let's release 2.0.2 first :) Don Ted Husted wrote: > On 12/27/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'd like to move on this quickly and have it completed within two weeks. >> >> Thoughts? > > Do we want to release Struts 2.0.2 with what we have already? > > A Struts 2.0.3 is already a foregone conclusion since XWork 2 is at RC1. > > -Ted. > > - > 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] -- HTH, Ted. * http://www.husted.com/struts/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
If we are talking a day or two, sure, let's get 2.0.2 out there. If we are talking two weeks, then I think we should move the dojo tags out. How about this - I plan to work on this sometime this week/weekend, so if you release 2.0.2 before I finish, then yes, let's release 2.0.2 first :) Don Ted Husted wrote: On 12/27/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to move on this quickly and have it completed within two weeks. Thoughts? Do we want to release Struts 2.0.2 with what we have already? A Struts 2.0.3 is already a foregone conclusion since XWork 2 is at RC1. -Ted. - 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]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
On 12/27/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to move on this quickly and have it completed within two weeks. Thoughts? Do we want to release Struts 2.0.2 with what we have already? A Struts 2.0.3 is already a foregone conclusion since XWork 2 is at RC1. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] Tag reorganization
Are we using any library for the client side validation? I haven't look at it, but if we do, that would probably need to be in core. musachy Don Brown wrote: Ok, let's put this into a formal proposal. I propose that we extract any Dojo-related tags and behaviors into a new tag library. This new library could extend the old tags for the purposes of adding Dojo-related attributes, however, it should be its own logical tag library. We should keep the old themeable tags, but look to speed up the simple theme, probably through a Java rendering engine. The new Dojo-based tags will contain: - The date picker - The rich text editor - Any remote div-loading tags - Extensions of existing tags to add new Dojo-related attributes and rendering. If it isn't possible to extend the existing tags/components and add new parameters, then we'll make it so. - Dojo. We'll pull all the Dojo files out of core. We will be left with the original, themeable tags. These tags will still use the theme engines and we'll keep the xhtml theme, but write or include a simple tooltip Javascript library to we don't need to import all of Dojo. Ideally, I'd like to see the simple tags rendered with Java for superior performance, but that part of the proposal can wait. These tags will retain as much as backwards compatibility as possible, with the exception of the missing Ajax theme. Any ajax functionality that used DWR will remain in the old tags and be moved to the xhtml theme. I'd like to move on this quickly and have it completed within two weeks. Thoughts? Don - 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]
[proposal] Tag reorganization
Ok, let's put this into a formal proposal. I propose that we extract any Dojo-related tags and behaviors into a new tag library. This new library could extend the old tags for the purposes of adding Dojo-related attributes, however, it should be its own logical tag library. We should keep the old themeable tags, but look to speed up the simple theme, probably through a Java rendering engine. The new Dojo-based tags will contain: - The date picker - The rich text editor - Any remote div-loading tags - Extensions of existing tags to add new Dojo-related attributes and rendering. If it isn't possible to extend the existing tags/components and add new parameters, then we'll make it so. - Dojo. We'll pull all the Dojo files out of core. We will be left with the original, themeable tags. These tags will still use the theme engines and we'll keep the xhtml theme, but write or include a simple tooltip Javascript library to we don't need to import all of Dojo. Ideally, I'd like to see the simple tags rendered with Java for superior performance, but that part of the proposal can wait. These tags will retain as much as backwards compatibility as possible, with the exception of the missing Ajax theme. Any ajax functionality that used DWR will remain in the old tags and be moved to the xhtml theme. I'd like to move on this quickly and have it completed within two weeks. Thoughts? Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
