no no. I think you are right (if i understand you correctly). By default the
conversation lives as long as the session which means a conversation can live
far longer than just e.g. 30 min.
I'd admit I am also one of those who would like to see a default timeout
happening, though others wont
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Cagatay Civici updated TOMAHAWK-:
-
Resolution: Fixed
Status: Resolved (was: Patch Available)
PasswordStrength
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOBAGO-465?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Bernd Bohmann resolved TOBAGO-465.
--
Resolution: Fixed
how I can set the tabindex attribute
IE 7.0 should be supported by UserAgent
Key: TOBAGO-478
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOBAGO-478
Project: MyFaces Tobago
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Core
Affects
Ok, yes, then - you got me right, and you know what side I'd lean to ;)
regards,
Martin
On 9/8/07, Mario Ivankovits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no no. I think you are right (if i understand you correctly). By default the
conversation lives as long as the session which means a conversation can
action facet of page should support target and transition
-
Key: TOBAGO-479
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOBAGO-479
Project: MyFaces Tobago
Issue Type: Improvement
Allow overriding generateDoctype in UIPage
Key: TOBAGO-480
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOBAGO-480
Project: MyFaces Tobago
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Core
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOBAGO-478?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Bernd Bohmann resolved TOBAGO-478.
--
Resolution: Fixed
IE 7.0 should be supported by UserAgent
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOBAGO-480?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Bernd Bohmann resolved TOBAGO-480.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Allow overriding generateDoctype in UIPage
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOBAGO-479?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Bernd Bohmann resolved TOBAGO-479.
--
Resolution: Fixed
action facet of page should support target and transition
I have been watching this thread and I think this is an important topic.
However I want to make the following comments.
1. Since the JSF specification has no input on AJAX and to me there are several
viable AJAX frameworks, none of which really play well together, I don't buy
the argument
Some quick responses inside
On 9/8/07, Steven Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been watching this thread and I think this is an important topic.
However I want to make the following comments.
1. Since the JSF specification has no input on AJAX and to me there are
several viable AJAX
On 9/7/07, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@Matthias, can you take care of the Continuum fix?
Done.
--
Wendy
Currently the config for a scope (from which a conversation inherits its
properties) looks like this:
bean class=...orchestra.spring.SpringConversationScope
property name=timeout value=30/
/bean
If no timeout property is present, then no timeout applies.
Otherwise, the specified
Hi!
If no timeout property is present, then no timeout applies.
Otherwise, the specified timeout applies.
You are right too with all you said.
Hmmm No pc here yet, but, how do a servlet container behave if there is no
session timeout configured or is it a required configuration?
Ciao,
Hello,
according to the Servlet specification:
///
The session-timeout element defines the default
session timeout interval for all sessions created
in this web application. The specified timeout
must be expressed in a whole number of minutes.
If the timeout is 0 or less, the container ensures
On this subject: I'm thinking my assumption that 1.0.3
was the right version number was off... I'll start a thread
to see if this should be 1.2.3.
-- Adam
On 9/8/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/7/07, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@Matthias, can you take care of the
I've moved the Trinidad Maven Plugins to their own sub-repository.
The codebase is really the 1.2 codeline.
The question is, should the version number of the next release be:
- 1.0.3
- 1.2.3
- Something else?
I'd initially gone with 1.0.3, on the line of thought that we really were
saying
On 9/8/07, Andrew Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some quick responses inside
On 9/8/07, Steven Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been watching this thread and I think this is an important topic.
However I want to make the following comments.
1. Since the JSF specification has
tr:table to provide the ability to partially render rows
Key: TRINIDAD-699
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-699
Project: MyFaces Trinidad
Issue Type: Wish
2.0.0?
2.x saying that it is the 2nd major release of this tool, not that it
has anything to do with JSF 2.0. If it is indeed JSF version
independent, shouldn't matter that it gets away from 1.2.x.
On 9/8/07, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've moved the Trinidad Maven Plugins to their own
On 9/7/07, Andrew Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...I'd be vastly less concerned about seeing such
a component appear in a generic MyFaces PPR/AJAX library, when
we get around to that...
What about a slow start?
Could be a tag namespace of:
For push triggering: what if we had a tag called pprTrigger,
that worked like:
someone:commandLink ...
tr:pprTrigger event=action partialTargets=list of ids/
/someone:commandLink
someone:inputText ...
tr:pprTrigger event=valueChange partialTargets=list of ids/
/someone:inputText
... where
Yeah, that thought occurred... I'm not too worried that it's the
same number as JSF 2.0, but I do think it implies that
we've made major changes since 1.2.2, which definitely
isn't the case! I like saving major number changes for
releases that break backwards compatibility.
-- Adam
On 9/8/07,
On 9/8/07, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've moved the Trinidad Maven Plugins to their own sub-repository.
The codebase is really the 1.2 codeline.
The question is, should the version number of the next release be:
- 1.0.3
- 1.2.3
- Something else?
I thought it was odd that
Ok, so I guess orchestra could use that same convention. This is still a
magic number that people will need to look up in the docs, though.
I still think it is more intuitive for people to not get a conversation
timeout unless they configure one. There will be absolutely no surprised
developers
Simon,
If this element is not specified,
the container must set its default
timeout
I think the spec is not very helpful with this text as it does not say what the
container default value is.
With respect to memory usage this is even more important for Orhestra as a
developer often do not
If #1 was decided on, it would be good to have clear documentation on
the how to initiate the submit from one of those components as well.
TrPage.getInstance().sendPartialFormPost may be enough, but maybe
additional standard form parameters could be supported in that
method call (like, (1) is
Merge tree and tree2
Key: TOMAHAWK-1113
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1113
Project: MyFaces Tomahawk
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Tree Table, Tree2
Environment: all
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1113?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12525971
]
Dave commented on TOMAHAWK-1113:
Most poeple use tree2. It is sufficient to add treeTable feature into
tree2.
On 9/8/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/7/07, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@Matthias, can you take care of the Continuum fix?
Done.
... and I deleted them from Continuum on the MyFaces zone. We need to
get the rest of the MyFaces builds moved over so we can shut that
31 matches
Mail list logo
