Re: Rép : [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

Time to catch up with my Struts emails ... I haven't looked at Shale Tiger yet so I can't comment on that part. As for the dialogs, I prefer XML configuration similar to what we already have. Our dialogs are pretty complicated and its hard to imagine the more sophisticated aspects of Shale dialog

Re: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

guration > after I have ported my application. By then I'll know if it is overkill or > not. > > Hermod > > -Original Message- > From: Alexandre Poitras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 11:12 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject:

RE: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

w if it is overkill or not. Hermod -Original Message- From: Alexandre Poitras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 11:12 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration Hey I like the idea of using Jackrabbit for configuratio

Re: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 4:15 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: RE: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration > > > > >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Hei > > > > If we where to look into a better config

RE: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

ruts Developers List Subject: RE: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hei > > If we where to look into a better configuration control, I would suggest > taking > a close look at Apache Jackrabbit (JSR-170). This gives amon

Rép : [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

I'm not advocating my off the cuff solution, which of course has drawbacks. I'm just suggesting that we think about something along these lines. I wouldn't mind seeing a less powerful interface, if you will, into dialogs that requires no configuration. btw, it seems to me that, to some degree, COC

RE: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hei > > If we where to look into a better configuration control, I would suggest > taking > a close look at Apache Jackrabbit (JSR-170). This gives among a lot of good > things, versioning. You can even run with (Embedded) Derby as a backend, or > just > a pl

RE: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

05 5:10 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration > > > Off the top of my head, I don't see why we couldn't define dialog > > > structure > > > with filesystem conventions and flow with custom tags in JSP pages

Re: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

On 12/22/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/22/05, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >From: David Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > This is from a blog entry about my Shale presentation at Javapolis at > > > http://blog.dannynet.net/: > > > > > > Off the top of my

Re: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

> > > Off the top of my head, I don't see why we couldn't define dialog > > > structure > > > with filesystem conventions and flow with custom tags in JSP pages. For > > > example, by default, a root dialog directory named WEB-INF/dialogs > > > (users > > > could override with a context init

Re: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

On 12/22/05, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >From: David Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > This is from a blog entry about my Shale presentation at Javapolis at > > http://blog.dannynet.net/: > > > > The other presentation was about Shale , by > > > David Geary (who has some interesting b

Re: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

>From: Hubert Rabago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 12/21/05, David Geary wrote: > > So, this guy's comments finally got me thinking: do we really need an XML > > config file for Shale Web Flow? If we could do away with that artifact, we > > could make web flow even easier to use and differentiate ou

Re: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

>From: David Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > This is from a blog entry about my Shale presentation at Javapolis at > http://blog.dannynet.net/: > > The other presentation was about Shale , by > > David Geary (who has some interesting blog > entriesabout > his experiences with Ruby and Rails by t

Re: [shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

On 12/21/05, David Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, this guy's comments finally got me thinking: do we really need an XML > config file for Shale Web Flow? If we could do away with that artifact, we > could make web flow even easier to use and differentiate ourselves further > from Spring Web

[shale] Dialogs and Convention over Configuration

This is from a blog entry about my Shale presentation at Javapolis at http://blog.dannynet.net/: The other presentation was about Shale , by > David Geary (who has some interesting blog > entriesab