RE: Counting down to the 1.2.1 release (was RE: Making Struts Build Easier)
I was recently told on the Commons list that Validator 1.1.1 is alpha-only. Is this not the case? How can a production 1.1.2 be released before 1.1.1 is production-ready? > -Original Message- > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:55 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Counting down to the 1.2.1 release (was RE: Making Struts > Build Easier) > > > > --- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:03:46 -0700, Matt Raible wrote: > > >> -Original Message- > > >> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Well, did-ja have anything to add to the list, Matt? :) > > > > > > Nope - release, release!! > > > > The ones we have are resolvable, but, I'm thinking Martin > has something > > up his sleeve yet ... > > > > Meanwhile, there's still the issue of our dependency on the > Validator > > nightly > > > > http://tinyurl.com/394ht > > > > and how far we are from another Validator release ... > > There have been a few additions since Validator 1.1.1 and IMO > 1.1.2 can be > cut anytime. > > David > > > > > -Ted. > > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > > - > 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: Reviving PageController (ViewController?) discussion?
Is the PageController going to have an associated ActionForm? When preparing to display a new page, it is often the case that I want to have access to a new action form that I can populate with default values for the HTML form to display. The action form is probably not of the same type as the action form for the previously-executed action, as that action form was having its processing completed, while this new action form is just beginning its lifecycle. Thanks. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Action Chaining
I was trying to avoid rehashing old arguments about action chaining. I have heard two arguments: one, it is not supported and can cause strange results and, two, it is indicative of bad design (the argument made below). I disagree that action chaining is always indicative of bad design. See my email on the users list (that got no discussion, which I never understood) http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-user&m=104370639426791&w=2. I believe I made an original argument for action chaining being almost required in a particular situation. In any case, I am not trying to force the committers to make action chaining easier in the vanilla struts distribution. I was merely hoping to get feedback if there is an obvious problem with my approach. Perhaps I should have posted to the users list - I thought that, since this deals with modifying the framework instead of just implementing within it, that I'd get better feedback here. Thanks, Derek Richardson -Original Message- From: Sgarlata Matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 4:05 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: Action Chaining There are probably many different solutions to make action chaining more intuitive. However, action chaining is not considered a best practice in the Struts community so effort will not be put forward to make it easier to do. There has been a lot of discussion of action chaining in both the user and developer list archives. As a quick summary, action chaining is considered a bad idea because it generally indicates that logic that should be in a separate business tier has been pushed up inappropriately to the presentation tier. If you are looking for a way to chain commands in the business tier you might want to investigate the Commons Chain package, which is currently in the jakarta commons sandbox. I hope that answers your question, Matt - Original Message - From: "Derek Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 3:57 PM Subject: Action Chaining To enable action chaining in an intuitive way, it seems that when the ActionServlet is called, it can look for an attribute in the request that indicates whether it has run before in this request. If the attribute is not there, do everthing and then set the attribute; if the attribute is there, don't reload the action form and don't reset the action errors collection and don't do anything else that intuitively should be one-time-only. Or maybe it's the request processor that's modified, in the same spirit. I've just had the idea, haven't actually looked at the code. Of course, this is so obvious that it must have been discarded already with good reason. So, before I find out why it's not reasonable the hard way by implementing it, please tell me where the hidden problems lie. Thanks, Derek Richardson - 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]
Struts-el: Page Tag: Why?
The bean:page tag is not one of the tags listed as not being ported into struts-el (http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/faqs/struts-el.html). This means that bean:page can do something struts-el cannot. Will someone point out to me what this is? I wrote a test JSP and cannot find any functionality of the page tag that cannot be reproduced with the JSTL set tag and the EL. My test jsp is below. The output I get is true in all cases. Thanks, Derek Richardson <%@ taglib prefix="c" uri="/tags/jstl-core" %> <%@ taglib prefix="b" uri="/tags/struts-bean" %> Test Bean Library Versus JSTL Application: Config: Request: Response: Session: - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action Chaining
To enable action chaining in an intuitive way, it seems that when the ActionServlet is called, it can look for an attribute in the request that indicates whether it has run before in this request. If the attribute is not there, do everthing and then set the attribute; if the attribute is there, don't reload the action form and don't reset the action errors collection and don't do anything else that intuitively should be one-time-only. Or maybe it's the request processor that's modified, in the same spirit. I've just had the idea, haven't actually looked at the code. Of course, this is so obvious that it must have been discarded already with good reason. So, before I find out why it's not reasonable the hard way by implementing it, please tell me where the hidden problems lie. Thanks, Derek Richardson - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
