functionality out of Struts 2 or has it been
resolved to create an abstraction layer around XWork so Struts 2 users don't
use XWork directly at all?
Thanks,
Gabe
- Original Message
From: Don Brown (JIRA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: issues@struts.apache.org
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006
ing
isn't the only way you can accomplish the use case.
Of course, I am willing to contribute all necessary code by the release target
date for the above issues or any of the other OGNL issues / XWork conversion
issues listed, since those are my main areas of expertise.
Thanks,
Gabe
Ted,
Good list. The two I would add as important to add from the Rough Spots are:
Gabe #2 *only* the part about removing '#' and putting / setting all variables
on the value stack, not the deprecation of the push tag. Also here:
http://jira.opensymphony.com/browse/XW-329
I think
s 3? Or are we going to be setting Phase II up with the first
release of SAF 2.
Don's proposal that "Migration to Struts Action 2.0 should take hours, not
days, weeks, but
probably not minutes." is the part that refers to this, I assume.
Gabe
- Original Message
From
iday, May 5, 2006 4:36:13 PM
Subject: Re: [action][Proposal] Architecture plan for Struts Action 2.0
Gabe wrote:
> Where XWork is in this proposal is a little vague. Would this proposal break
> the traditional division of roles between XWork and Webwork (Where SAF 2 is
> where webwork was)? If
so? Is this proposing that there be an adapter
layer in SAF 2 to access XWork APIs? Would we be looking to push changes into
XWork?
Thanks,
Gabe
- Original Message
From: Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2006 4:04:35 PM
Subject: [
I agree both that this is the core decision that has to be made now and that we
should push some of this stuff into XWork.
I won't vote though, because I've learned we're discussing not voting :-D
- Original Message
From: Jason Carreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: dev@struts.apache.org
Sen
n
layer and those that are not. Those that are not become more obscure and
undocumented.
Thus, while I applaud Bob and Patrick for putting out a vision in code, since
it appears to me that 90% of the API simply supports proposal #2, we should
discuss that proposal instead first before creating an
Since I for one will most likely not be at JavaOne (though I'd like to be more
for this than anything else) and I assume others will not be as well, I am wary
of the idea that the JavaOne meeting would be given such importance, though
understand there is so much stuff here that it is hard to ty
+1
- Original Message
From: tm jee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 9:37:53 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept and Graduate WebWork 2 Podling to Struts
+1
rgds
- Original Message
From: Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers
at point every time a new feature is suggested
to be added that depends on 1.5.
The way we use the GenericsObjectTypeDeterminer seems overall a good way to go
to me, where there is a DefaultObjectTypeDeterminer and if the Generics class
exists, then use that...
Gabe
- Original Message ---
ll be radically different from WW2, we might want to keep
opensymphony open so bug fixes can be submitted to WW as well, especially now
that people are looking more at using WW2.
Gabe
- Original Message
From: Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
S
Also, should we seperate these issues as XWork and SAF issues? The XWork issues
can just be entered into XWork JIRA and linked to from this page. (Some are
already there). Then, this page can serve as a list of the critical issues
before release.
- Original Message
From: Jason Carreir
er, something I am strongly against as well. In
fact I was more worried about XWork related features being added to SAF 2 if
they are seperate, but it seems like everyone here is pretty committed to not
let that happen.
Gabe
- Original Message
From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
ine that relationship.
Now, the last time I wrote a message like this, i was told to get the XWork
developers involved, so I think I will go do that now. ;-)
Gabe
- Original Message
From: Jason Carreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: dev@struts.apache.org
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:
on a tangential topic.
Gabe
- Original Message
From: Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List
Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2006 3:07:26 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Action/Shale/JSF Overlap? (Was --> RESTful JSF)
Sorry, I should be more clear when discussing EL. An Express
.
(Or at least this is the way the relationship btw XWork and Webwork used to
work).
Gabe
- Original Message
From: Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 9:49:37 PM
Subject: [action2] Debugging interceptor for devMode
Sorry, forgot the
the XWork dependancy from the Ti prototype or
that you included WW in addition to XWork?
Thanks,
Gabe
- Original Message
From: Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 12:22:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Struts Ti] XWork?
Gabe wrote:
> I wanted
we wouldn't want to switch midstream how users approach XWork classes
(start out with open symphony ActionSupport and then have to move to a struts
one for example), since they are so integral to the app.
I hope this clarifies why I think this is a decision we should make now.
Gabe
I agree with Don and Paul. The webwork as dear to us as it may be should be
excised.
- Original Message
From: Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 3:55:50 PM
Subject: Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
I am +1 with Don. If this
quot; as possible. (Otherwise, why wouldn't a struts developer look at
this as the opportunity to try something completely different?) Therefore, I
think using html for the ww form tags etc would be ideal.
I am not for naming that would keep webwork in any of the class names / file
names.
T
Core, for example, it might be better to rename WebworkSpringObjectFactory
WebSpringObjectFactory.
That's why I think it important to determine what we are doing with XWork
sooner rather than later.
Gabe
- Original Message
From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Strut
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List ; Gabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33:55 PM
Subject: Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
Gabe, the best argument, I see, behind an "action2" package is that
it's totally incompatible with the previous versio
s discussed in my message about xwork is xwork implemented on the
web. Therefore what was xwork should exist in a package name that reflects
that. (So, if xwork were brought over it might be called
org.apache.struts.core, for example, and for swing, say,
org.apache.struts.swing)
Gabe
- Origin
Hi! I don't think I have posted to this list yet. I am Gabe, XWork/Webwork
developer. Now that I see that discussions are starting about the merger I
wanted to bring up an issue that I brought up on the WW boards that was tabled
for just this moment (or after incubation?)
The issue is wh
25 matches
Mail list logo
