On 5/5/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: May 5, 2006 2:36 PM
> Subject: Re: SAF 1.3.x and legacy RequestProcessor
>
> On 5/5/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Its probably
From: Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 5, 2006 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: SAF 1.3.x and legacy RequestProcessor
On 5/5/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Its probably academic, but since CRP extends RP then it seems
> >incorrect to deprecate the wh
At 3:03 PM +0100 5/5/06, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On 5/5/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Its probably academic, but since CRP extends RP then it seems
incorrect to deprecate the whole class with a view to removing in the
future. Wouldn't it be more correct to deprecate all the prote
-- Forwarded message --
From: Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 5, 2006 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: SAF 1.3.x and legacy RequestProcessor
To: Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 5/5/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Its probably academic,
Its probably academic, but since CRP extends RP then it seems
incorrect to deprecate the whole class with a view to removing in the
future. Wouldn't it be more correct to deprecate all the protected
methods (e.g. processActionCreate(), processActionForm etc.)?
Perhaps we should consider what the
On 5/4/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/4/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 8:07 AM -0700 5/4/06, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
> >Looking at 1.3 internals (at last) I've found that it contains both
> >ComposableRequestProcessor (CRP) and legacy RequestProcessor (RP).
On 5/4/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 8:07 AM -0700 5/4/06, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
>Looking at 1.3 internals (at last) I've found that it contains both
>ComposableRequestProcessor (CRP) and legacy RequestProcessor (RP). Is
>this duality really needed?
>
>For a regular Struts us
At 8:07 AM -0700 5/4/06, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
Looking at 1.3 internals (at last) I've found that it contains both
ComposableRequestProcessor (CRP) and legacy RequestProcessor (RP). Is
this duality really needed?
For a regular Struts user who does not extend RP, the new CRP should
work just l
Looking at 1.3 internals (at last) I've found that it contains both
ComposableRequestProcessor (CRP) and legacy RequestProcessor (RP). Is
this duality really needed?
For a regular Struts user who does not extend RP, the new CRP should
work just like the old one. The only difference is the config
