[FRIDAY] Was: Re: OT: JCL?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:46:25 -0800 (PST), David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Vic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Craig McClanahan wrote: > > > > >... I'd just switch > > >to JDK 1.4 logging and be done with an external dependency > > > > > Resin switched to JDK logging a long time a

Re: OT: JCL?

--- Vic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Craig McClanahan wrote: > > >... I'd just switch > >to JDK 1.4 logging and be done with an external dependency > > > Resin switched to JDK logging a long time ago. ( I tried, but could not > figure out how to work it ). > > Same goes for Oro... just use JD

Re: [shale] Fwd: UGLI instead of JCL?

Thanks a lot Craig, that was a much more in-depth response than I had hoped for :) One of the things that concerns me is that my organization has decided to go with JCL all-around, but we are also using Websphere exclusively. Because Websphere has one of the most complex classloaders in exist

Re: [shale] Fwd: UGLI instead of JCL?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:26:17 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Craig, I have some interest in this discussion because of the direction > we are taking here at work... > > Since you said if you WERE inclined to change Shale's logging, can I > infer from this that you don't feel

OT: JCL?

Craig McClanahan wrote: ... I'd just switch to JDK 1.4 logging and be done with an external dependency Resin switched to JDK logging a long time ago. ( I tried, but could not figure out how to work it ). .V -- Forums, Boards, Blogs and News in RiA ---

Re: [shale] Fwd: UGLI instead of JCL?

Craig, I have some interest in this discussion because of the direction we are taking here at work... Since you said if you WERE inclined to change Shale's logging, can I infer from this that you don't feel it needs to be changed, which further would imply that you don't believe the "problems"

Re: [shale] Fwd: UGLI instead of JCL?

If I were inclined to change Shale's own logging APIs, I'd just switch to JDK 1.4 logging and be done with an external dependency (since Shale presumes 1.4 or later anyway). Shale's own needs are very modest, and would be adequately met by what is already built in. That being said, switching to e

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 866] - Clean Way to Add Parameters to Redirecting Forward

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.

[shale] Fwd: UGLI instead of JCL?

--- Original Message --- From: "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:06:03 +0100 Subject: UGLI instead of JCL? > Hi Ted, > > May I suggest that for Shale you consider switching to UGLI [1] > instead of JCL because the former causes none of the clas

Re: ActionContext chain changes committed

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:30:04 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote: >> The last sentence is the use-case for a ViewContext. >> >> The use-case is not within the RequestProcessor >> but without. The ViewContext is the specific API we want to >> expose to the presentation layer, as opposed to the control >> laye

Re: ActionContext chain changes committed

At 7:27 AM -0500 2/11/05, Ted Husted wrote: >Ý(Ah, that's one of the best things about Shale ... no such thing as Ýa configuration bean, since the managed beans facility of JSF does Ýall the work :-) Good point. IMHO, we should think about plugging in to Spring or Hivemind sooner than later. Ide

Re: ActionContext chain changes committed

>ÝThis also installs the "split" between the "process-action" and Ý"process-view" sub-chains, although I haven't yet changed the ÝSelectInput command to return "false" to eliminate the need for Ýlater commands to check to see if the form was valid. ÝI think the big outstanding question in my mind

Re: ActionContext chain changes committed

Thanks for the input, Craig... I'm not sure it is totally relevant here, but I've seen the concept mentioned peripherally ... if the intent is that Struts 1.3 should play nice in a portlet environment... While I think this is nice in theory, it's not my driving intention, simply because I have no

Re: ActionContext chain changes committed

Inline. On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:11:59 -0800, Craig McClanahan wrote: > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:45:04 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> OK:  the ComposableRequestProcessor now makes sure that the >> context passed to the initial chain command is an instance of >> ActionContext --

Re: ActionContext chain changes committed

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:01:14 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote: > At 11:58 AM +0100 2/7/05, Wolfgang Gehner wrote: >> We don't see a case for a switching contexts within the request >> cycle to a "ViewContext". >> >> - Based on *last weeks* code, we created our own context named >> "ActContext" that extend

Re: ActionContext chain changes committed

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 20:19:01 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote: > I have just committed the suite of changes I was emailing about a > few weeks ago.  Please be aware that nightly builds are probably > now the least stable that they've been in some time.  I have spent > some time this weekend working on a s