I'm finally settling in at my new job and now have approval to work on
S2, XWork, and WebWork. (Not that my meager bug fixes and
contributions are revolutionary but they seem to keep Rainer busy.)
Cheers,
Eric
On 1/18/07, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/18/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTE
Somewhat related (but mostly not)
What parts (if any) of the new API (The bob_lee_api) will be in 2.0.1 (final)?
Cheers,
Eric
On 10/23/06, Rene Gielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ X ] +1 Beta grade for 2.0.1 "all"
Regards,
Rene
---
+1 I've been using this combination (Spring 2 and Struts 2) with a
high volume production service for a while now. It's backwards
compatible so the folks still on spring 1.2.xx should just keep
working...
Cheers,
Eric
On 10/14/06, tm jee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey I am not so selfis
For Xdoclet just make sure you are using release 1.2.3 and download
the 1.5-snapshot050611 version of xjavadoc. (All are on the files
section of their SF.net page)
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=31602
Cheers,
Eric
On 8/28/06, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ers,
Eric
On 7/26/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric Molitor wrote:
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=14251&tstart=15A
> At "The Spring Experience" in Miami Keith Donald,
> Myself, and Matthew Porter worked out a way it could
> be d
I just created and attached a patch to WW-1394 to update SAF2 to use
Spring 1.2.8. This should resolve some silly spring issues that exist
in 1.2.6 (and 1.2.7).
(I have a more complex patch to update some of the spring integration
but that needs to wait for Spring 2.00)
Someone should take a gan
nt build, I'd be fine with that.
Don
Eric Molitor wrote:
> It realy comes down to managing the dependencies. I could forsee
> someone building an ant build that ran against the compiled code and
> dependencies. (Similar to Atlassians build system with JIRA.) However
> I persona
It realy comes down to managing the dependencies. I could forsee
someone building an ant build that ran against the compiled code and
dependencies. (Similar to Atlassians build system with JIRA.) However
I personally dont think its appropriate to be part of the project. (At
least not as a source l
When we discussed this issue in regards to 2.2.3 (and then pulled it
because of the significant number of changes) it seemed like option 2
not only solved this issue but other template inheritance issues as
well.
With the emphasis that is being put on templating, from multiple AJAX
templates to s
Staying on CVS is probably a smarter descision for now but...
You could convert the repo to SVN, create a 1.xx branch and then you
could import your local copy into the trunk.
Never tried it but in theory it would work.
Cheers,
Eric
On 5/23/06, Jason Carreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
My experience is that it's quite a bit faster than CVS (especially
over a WAN) but to be honest the biggest advantages I've seen are with
file moves, renames, and branching. SVN seems to handle them all
relatively painlessly which is a significant improvement over CVS.
Also the SVN support in Int
The name changes resolve the ambiguities that I saw in the first draft
so that is a definite positive. The Messages.Severity enum and other
messaging improvements are a definite positive. (They satisfy my
desire for a Log4J type usage but are still distinct enough to avoid
confusion.)
Since the l
On 5/8/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I haven't been able to get an export of the SAF2 wiki in any format.
I've let the process run for over an hour, but it never seems to
return.
Smells like the same issue encountered when trying to export the WW
2.2.2 docs for release. Anybody kno
Just as some people continue to use WebWork 1.xx (JIRA) I imagine
people will continue to use SAF1 regardless of how easy the migration
path is.
I always assume it would take a day or two to convert existing WW code
to SAF2 so at the end of the day just picking a direction is progress.
:)
Cheers
Addresses my concerns quite nicely and should be easy to refactor code against.
On 5/5/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I like it, Level should extend Comparable, and Global works for me.
Don
Bob Lee wrote:
> - The attached version supports arbitrary levels. I used an interface
> inste
Happily XWork has no dependency on web development at all, I use it to
provide a command pattern for autonomous path finding robots for
instance. Anything less than complete abstraction at the action level
would be vetoed by most of the existing developers. (At least I hope
they would vote it down
The new Messages API could easily be mapped onto an implementation
similar to that of Log4J. Why not embrace that idea and utilize
familiar methods to provide access.
such as...
msgs.info("some.key");
msgs.warn("some.warn.key");
msgs.error("some.error.key");
It does increase the number of method
cases you
would be using few, if any, of the interfaces.
Cheers,
Eric
On 5/4/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/4/06, Eric Molitor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I definitely agree that they should be isolated, but glancing through
> the api I saw Re
I definitely agree that they should be isolated, but glancing through
the api I saw RequestAware but not ResponseAware. (I`m reading the
copy Don posted and not the version under source control.)
On 5/4/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/4/06, Eric Molitor <[EMAIL PROTECTE
I guess I'm a bit confused but is this API the only supported route or
are their plans to support existing WebWork/Xwork code? I'll be honest
and say that I need to go through the API and consider each point
before I make a complete judgement. However, at first glance, this
deviates far enough fro
Even prior to the SAF merger I've always thought it should be
action.xml. Only the action.vm feels a bit awkward to me. My
preference would be default.vm, base.vm, or something like that.
On 4/30/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Heretofore, the WebWork product was being distributed by O
+1 (Not that my vote counts but it runs all my apps)
On 4/28/06, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 from me and a big thank you to everyone involved
On Apr 28, 2006, at 20:19 , Don Brown wrote:
> I call a vote that the Struts PMC accept the WebWork 2 podling as
> having met the incu
--
>
> Key: WW-1281
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1281
> Project: Struts Action 2
> Type: Improvement
> Components: Views, Configuration, Dispatch
> Versions: WW 2.2.2
> Environment: Any
> Reporter: Eric Molitor
>
Could/should the "nice to haves" be moved to their own page? There are
a few items that I'd like to add but they are not really appropriate
for the rough spots page.
Cheers,
Eric
On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, the first couple paragraphs in the DefaultActionMapper secti
est.
> I readded the -Dtestcase= switch as well.
>
> So, running the unit tests with ant is working again...
>
> cheers,
> Rainer
>
> On Apr 11, 2006, at 20:18 , Eric Molitor wrote:
>
> > It will have to be this evening (I'm -5 hours against UTC) as I dont
&g
Its not pretty but look at WW-1283 for the patch
On 4/11/06, Eric Molitor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I have them working but probably not in the way you want them
> too. I'll send the patch to both you and Rainer.
>
> Cheers,
>Eric
>
> On 4/11/06, Rene
you already got things working? Then I'll wait for your patch...
>
> Regards,
> Rene
>
> Eric Molitor schrieb:
>
> > It will have to be this evening (I'm -5 hours against UTC) as I dont
> > have them on my work laptop.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
>
> On Apr 11, 2006, at 19:07 , Eric Molitor wrote:
>
> > I hacked away at them last night to get them to work via ant and
> > intellij. Wasn't pretty but only took an hour or so. Probably take two
> > hours to do it "right".
> >
> > On 4/11/06,
I hacked away at them last night to get them to work via ant and
intellij. Wasn't pretty but only took an hour or so. Probably take two
hours to do it "right".
On 4/11/06, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone currently working on the build process with ant and maven?
> It looks l
p.
>
> --
> James Mitchell
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2006, at 2:37 AM, Eric Molitor wrote:
>
> > This patch allows the parameters for the stream result to be read from
> > the stack. I seem to be having issues running the unit tests so none
> > are included.
This patch allows the parameters for the stream result to be read from
the stack. I seem to be having issues running the unit tests so none
are included. (I'll probably work on some later). Precedence is given
to values on the stack over values in the XML file.
I plan to use the patch as follows
rote:
>
> On what framework would this solution you are describing run? Are you
> talking about running Struts 1.x actions inside
> Action 2? If so, that is something that has been started in the sandbox,
> but not fully developed. I'd like to hear more.
>
> Don
>
This may be a dumb suggestion but why not implement a lightweight action
class that's in StrutsAction and then if a user chooses they can use the
full support of XWork. I'm not sure where you draw the line (you'd probably
want validation) but I cant see why you couldn't implement a few of the
inter
33 matches
Mail list logo