James, could you warm up to "Struts COR" or CORe? Like you, I feel that
"Action" focuses on some "old" mechanics part of Struts. COR as in
Chain-Of-Command, which IMHO brought Struts forward a lot (I already
wrote an article about it last Feb). I had brought up the name Struts
CORe a while ag
On 12/17/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ---
> Based on its quality, the Struts Scripting 1.0.1 build should be
> classified as:
>
> [ ] Alpha
> [ ] Beta
> [X] General Availability (GA)
> ---
On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As and for an alternative, I suggest we move the classes that depend
> on Resources from Extras
>
> * http://struts.apache.org/struts-extras/apidocs/index.html
>
> to a sandbox Extras folder until Commons Message Resources is ready.
The original
Author: dgeary
Date: Tue Jan 10 17:31:31 2006
New Revision: 367868
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=367868&view=rev
Log:
Added an Ajax example to the usecases application. The example uses Shale's
newly refactored remoting capabilities to complete a form: when you select a
zip code from a
On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 06:48 -0500, Ted Husted wrote:
> Given the various API changes that are being discussed for CommonsResources,
>
> * http://tinyurl.com/8llr6
>
> we might not want to hold the rest of 1.3.0 until Resources is released.
Agreed. IMO Resources doesn't feel like 1.0 material yet
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project struts-taglib has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue affect
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project struts-taglib has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue affect
On 1/10/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, but that happens anyways, even between 1.2 and 1.3. I agree with
> Michael it is unnecessary. The only argument I
> see could be to distinguish between action and shale in which case
> [action] is fine. But really, I don't think it
> rea
On 1/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/10/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't see a point to build fences between two versions of
> > (presumably) the same framework. This will slow down the adoption of
> > 2.0/WW/Ti .
>
> There has to be _some_ way to
Yeah, but that happens anyways, even between 1.2 and 1.3. I agree with Michael it is unnecessary. The only argument I
see could be to distinguish between action and shale in which case [action] is fine. But really, I don't think it
really matters.
Don
Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 1/10/06, Michael
On 1/10/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see a point to build fences between two versions of
> (presumably) the same framework. This will slow down the adoption of
> 2.0/WW/Ti .
There has to be _some_ way to separate the questions, otherwise every
answer is going to star
On 1/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
> > subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
> > framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for
On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey, credit where credit's due... Al *INVENTED* the Internet! ;) LOL
> >
> > (You had a mailreader in the BBS days?!? I remember lame little forums
> in
> > CNet over a 300 baud moden
On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
> subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
> framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
>
> * [SAF 2.x]
>
> or
>
> * [Action
> And, again, this is nothing new or special. Back in
> the BBS days, before Al Gore ever heard of the Internet, all the
> mailreaders had twit lists. :)
>
Now, that sounds like a new "you might be a geek" category :-)
> -Ted.
>
>
>
> --
> HTH, Ted.
> http://www.husted.com/poe/
>
> --
On 1/10/06, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It just seems odd to me. I prefer using a new
> name versus renaming something with the same name as one of it's
> parts. Too little too late...
I would have to agree that, much like Democracy, "Action is the worst
choice of a name -- excep
On 1/10/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, credit where credit's due... Al *INVENTED* the Internet! ;) LOL
>
> (You had a mailreader in the BBS days?!? I remember lame little forums in
> CNet over a 300 baud moden via CGTerm, and I was happy to have it!)
Though, I wasn't glad
I didn't realize we had a default. If [Action] is the default, then
[Action 2.x] or [Action2] (thanks Wendy) makes perfect sense.
I never did pipe up during the "what do we call it" discussions for
"Ti", "Action", etc. I probably started a reply to 5 or 6 messages,
then cancelled before s
On Tue, January 10, 2006 9:18 am, Ted Husted said:
> Back in
> the BBS days, before Al Gore ever heard of the Internet
> mailreaders had twit lists. :)
Hey, credit where credit's due... Al *INVENTED* the Internet! ;) LOL
(You had a mailreader in the BBS days?!? I remember lame little forums in
C
On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
> subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
> framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
>
> * [SAF 2.x]
> or
> * [Action 2.x
Ted Husted asked
>
> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a
> standard subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the
> Struts Shale framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the
> other, should we use
>
> * [SAF 2.x]
>
> or
>
> * [Action 2.x]
I'd say [Action
Right now, [Action] is still the default, so we don't need a tag for
that. But we do need to look forward to [Action 2.x], and now is as
good a time as any. There are always people are are not interested in
the next major release of anything, at least until it stabalizes.
We're forever putting tag
Actually, what we call 'extras' was originally 'plugins'.
I created that area to host optional plugins that shouldn't be
depended on by anything. While I had bigger plans for 'plugins',
only resources seemed to make it there. I didn't want to put
resources under the sandbox, because each
I'm not sure this is a good idea.
By agreeing on one or the other (or one that hasn't even been
mentioned yet), are we not setting ourselves up for future troll
attacks? Based on history, there is a high probability that dormant
trolls will come out of the woodwork with little more to say
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project struts-taglib has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue affect
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project struts-taglib has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue affect
Given the various API changes that are being discussed for CommonsResources,
* http://tinyurl.com/8llr6
we might not want to hold the rest of 1.3.0 until Resources is released.
As and for an alternative, I suggest we move the classes that depend
on Resources from Extras
* http://struts.apache.o
hi guys. back! :)
just [Action] ?
riyaz
* [SAF 2.x]
or
* [Action 2.x]
-Ted.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Struts Action Framework.
>
> I figured that out.
>
> > Is that what Struts is now being called?
> >
> >
> > That is what the original framework growing out of Struts 1.x
> > code is now being called ... see the Struts website home page
>
29 matches
Mail list logo
