2008/5/15 Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I dug a little deeper, and found the work-in-progress policy covering this
> issue [3]. GPL and LGPL licensed libraries are explicitly excluded from
> being included in / distributed with Apache projects there, but it doesn't
> address the new (v3) rev
Jeromy Evans wrote:
I wouldn't rush into this decision.
Users of the REST plugin require @Namespace, @Result, etc
annotations. Creating a duplicate set of annotations with the same
purpose is not sensible.
It's appropriate that the REST plugin has a dependency on the plugin
that auto-popul
I wouldn't rush into this decision.
Users of the REST plugin require @Namespace, @Result, etc annotations.
Creating a duplicate set of annotations with the same purpose is not
sensible.
It's appropriate that the REST plugin has a dependency on the plugin
that auto-populates the Configuratio
Because it extends the code behind it also does what code behind does.
musachy
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Bob Tiernay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I too would like to commend Musachy for timely and concentrated effort with
> regards to this plugin :)
>
> Are there any objections to merging
I too would like to commend Musachy for timely and concentrated effort with
regards to this plugin :)
Are there any objections to merging these plugins? Does the REST plugin
embody a set of conventions on urls alone, or does it go deeper than that?
---
Indeed :). I don't see why we shouldn't.
musachy
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It appears you're making the argument for combining these plugins. :-) +1 to
> that.
>
> Paul
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
It appears you're making the argument for combining these plugins. :-) +1 to
that.
Paul
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looking at the rest plugin, something doesn't feel right. Doesn't the
> dependency between REST and Codebehind looks wrong? From
Looking at the rest plugin, something doesn't feel right. Doesn't the
dependency between REST and Codebehind looks wrong? From
http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/plugins.html
"Plugins are not loaded in any particular order. Plugins should not
have dependencies on each other. A plugin may depend on
Laurie Harper wrote:
Giovanni Azua wrote:
hi,
I was researching a bit alternatives to dojo e.g. YUI or separate
widgets like a tooltip developed and distributed under GPL license and
found some comments from Struts contributors mentioning that because
of those widgets being GPL they could no
СообÑаем ÑÑо в ÑеÑи инÑеÑнеÑа поÑвилÑÑ
ÑеÑиал:
[size=22 - [color=#003366 - Ðобег из ÑÑÑÑÐ¼Ñ Ð¡ÐµÐ·Ð¾Ð½ 1,
СеÑÐ¸Ñ 1-22 (22) / Prison Break Season 1 Episode 1-22 (22)[/color - [/size
-
http://i049.radikal.ru/0712/36/4380db99a782.jpg
«Ðо
Can anyone of the developers be kind enough to verify if this is a bug. I have
done no coding of my own. I have deployed blank.wars for struts 2.0.11 and
2.1.2 on the same server both have form based authentication enabled. The
following url works for
2.0.11 https://localhost:9445/struts2.0.11
Giovanni Azua wrote:
hi,
I was researching a bit alternatives to dojo e.g. YUI or separate
widgets like a tooltip developed and distributed under GPL license and
found some comments from Struts contributors mentioning that because of
those widgets being GPL they could not be considered ...
BTW, I'd like to thank Musachy for taking charge of this. Having started
my own company in Feb. I have barely had time for anything open source.
Hopefully this can make it over and users can jump on board with it. It
really makes Struts2 development so much simpler and JCatapult is
essentiall
That's what the vote is for :) (of course there is the issue of REST
which I am looking into)
musachy
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From a 10,000 ft view it looks like Convention would be the successor to
> Zero-Config and Code-behind based on functional
It may be, but it's probably best to put it through the ringer in 2.1.x
first.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Worth releasing a new 2.0.x version for?
>
> If it gives a good performance boost then the user community would probably
> love to have it.
>
> -
From a 10,000 ft view it looks like Convention would be the successor to
Zero-Config and Code-behind based on functionality. Possibly a deprecate in
2.1.3+ and 2.2, with a view to drop in 2.3/3.0?
- Original Message -
From: "Musachy Barroso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developer
Worth releasing a new 2.0.x version for?
If it gives a good performance boost then the user community would probably
love to have it.
- Original Message -
From: "James Holmes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List"
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] u
Yes, good point. I noticed after I sent out the email that 2.3.13 wasn't in
Maven yet. I'm going to send them an email to nudge that along.
The 2.3.13 release appears that it could dramatically improve performance
for Struts 2 releases with the updates that have been made to the internal
caching m
+1 once 2.3.13 has made distributed to the maven repositories.
- Original Message -
From: "Musachy Barroso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List"
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] upgrade Struts 2.1.x FreeMarker dependency to 2.3.13
+1
On Thu, May
+1
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:23 AM, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:23 AM, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Currently Struts 2.1.x depends on FreeMarker 2.3.12. I propose to upgrade
>> the dependency to 2.3.13 to take advantage of performa
+1
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:23 AM, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Currently Struts 2.1.x depends on FreeMarker 2.3.12. I propose to upgrade
> the dependency to 2.3.13 to take advantage of performance improvements and
> bug fixes.
>
> See this link for release notes:
> http://freemark
Currently Struts 2.1.x depends on FreeMarker 2.3.12. I propose to upgrade
the dependency to 2.3.13 to take advantage of performance improvements and
bug fixes.
See this link for release notes:
http://freemarker.sourceforge.net/docs/versions_2_3_13.html
[ ] Yes, upgrade the dependency to 2.3.13
[
I don't think there is any page that compares them, quick overview:
Code-behind: Provides default mappings for pages without actions,
default results (finds templates based on action name and result)
Zero-Conf: Provides annotations: @Result, @Namespace and
@ParentPackage to create action mappings
hi,
I was researching a bit alternatives to dojo e.g. YUI or separate
widgets like a tooltip developed and distributed under GPL license and
found some comments from Struts contributors mentioning that because of
those widgets being GPL they could not be considered ...
I am absolutely not an
24 matches
Mail list logo
