Yes, I would like to start by introducing the new interfaces as "experimental"
and not start deprecating members until we are sure of the migration path.
Later, when the time comes, if there was solid support in the community for
removing the legacy classes, then yes, the rest could follow. Thou
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 07:02:12 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd suggest that we plan on adding new interfaces in 1.3.x, so that people
> (incluiding us) can start migrating to contexts, but that we hold back on new
> deprecations until we've had some time to work with contexts a
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 20:41:27 +, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to get rid of this in 1.3 with the move to
> Chain?
Just to clarify my understanding:
* The head is 1.3.x.
* The patch to #32490 would be applied to both head and 1.2.x branch so that we
could roll 1.2.7.
The goo
At 2:12 AM + 12/4/04, Niall Pemberton wrote:
I wasn't proposing changing the validation model at all - but with the
advent of Chain we could deprecate the validate(mapping, request) method in
favour of a validate(Context) method in ActionForm. This would provide more
flexibility and cause less
Yes I guess that would be better.
Niall
- Original Message -
From: "Eddie Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: ActionForm.validateForm(...) to replace
ActionForm.
ssage -
From: "Niall Pemberton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: ActionForm.validateForm(...) to replace
ActionForm.validate(...)
I wasn't proposing changing the val
---
From: "Joe Germuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Niall Pemberton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Struts Developers
List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: ActionForm.validateForm(...) to replace
ActionForm.validate(...)
ssage -
From: "Martin Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: ActionForm.validateForm(...) to replace
ActionForm.validate(...)
We did just get Commons Resources promoted o
From: "Martin Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: ActionForm.validateForm(...) to replace
ActionForm.validate(...)
> We did just get Commons Resources promoted out of
At 11:59 AM -0800 12/3/04, Martin Cooper wrote:
We did just get Commons Resources promoted out of the sandbox, and I'm
hopeful that we'll get that puppy released soon. Finally!
I think I'll go ahead and do it anyway. It will only take a few
minutes, and then it will be done no matter how long it t
We did just get Commons Resources promoted out of the sandbox, and I'm
hopeful that we'll get that puppy released soon. Finally!
--
Martin Cooper
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:37:38 -0800 (PST), David Graham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We didn't do it earlier because we wanted to use commons-resources
We didn't do it earlier because we wanted to use commons-resources for
message passing. That hasn't happened so we may as well add the
validateForm() method and deprecate validate().
David
--- Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In order to push forward on full deprecation of ActionErrors
2004 10:59 AM
Subject: ActionForm.validateForm(...) to replace ActionForm.validate(...)
In order to push forward on full deprecation of ActionErrors, I
propose adding the following method to ActionForm:
public ActionMessages validateForm(ActionMapping mapping,
Http
In order to push forward on full deprecation of ActionErrors, I
propose adding the following method to ActionForm:
public ActionMessages validateForm(ActionMapping mapping,
HttpServletRequest request) {
return validate(mapping, request);
14 matches
Mail list logo
