On 8/31/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Very interesting. Do you have any examples/tutorials of this anywhere
> accessible?
That's where the OverDrive/Nexus stuff is going, but, lately, the volunteer
hours have been going into Struts Classic :)
I'm doing some major refactoring
So, I really do have work I should be doing, but I couldn't help
looking around XWork a little bit, and I'm just wondering why Ti
needs to use both it and Spring anyway?
What are the various services offered by each that aren't offered by the other?
Joe
At 2:44 PM -0500 8/31/05, Joe Germuska
Great, I like it! The XWork messages are only for the user and not used by Ti internally at all. If using the
ApplicationContext doesn't impact the user negatively, I'm all for it.
The earliest I could make these changes would be next week, but if you are
volunteering... :)
Don
Joe Germuska
This also makes it fairly trivial to break out Struts' own XML
configuration into multiple files, so that there could be a
"chain-config.xml" file which adhered to the spring-beans.dtd
instead of using Digester.
Sure, sounds like a good approach; I'll look into it. I'm pretty
new to Spring a
Joe Germuska wrote:
I've just recently started getting my head around Spring's approach to
nested BeanFactories (or ApplicationContexts) and I'm wondering if that
isn't a better bootstrap mechanism than the explicit instantiation of an
XmlBeanFactory. It seems more likely to support a mixture
At 10:10 AM -0700 8/31/05, Don Brown wrote:
Hmm...I like the idea of combining the configurations from a
maintenance point of view, but on the other hand, the flow chain can
get lost, particularly when the number of commands are in a
minority. Separating also has the benefit, in our case anywa
Very interesting. Do you have any examples/tutorials of this anywhere
accessible?
Don
Ted Husted wrote:
(Mouse slipped)
On 8/31/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We also do things like create base data-access commands that know how to
run iBATIS
-Ted.
We also do things lik
Hmm...I like the idea of combining the configurations from a maintenance point of view, but on the other hand, the flow
chain can get lost, particularly when the number of commands are in a minority. Separating also has the benefit, in our
case anyways, of having the chain stay generic, but Spri
(Mouse slipped)
On 8/31/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> We also do things like create base data-access commands that know how to
> run iBATIS
>
> -Ted.
>
>
We also do things like create base data-access commands that know how to run
iBATIS queries. If a data-access command
On 8/31/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You might also be interested in the Spring and Chain integration piece I
> wrote for Ti.
We just load the Commands and Chains with Spring, along with everything
else, and don't bother with a separate catalog.
It started out ugly, but if y
Ted Husted wrote:
I'd suggest showing how to hook up to iBATIS or HIbernate in an example
application, and then deciding if TI needs to create yet-another DAO
framework.
Many iBATIS user s have stopped using the iBATIS DAO framework, since they
find using a dependency-injection framework, l
On 8/29/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> netsql wrote:
>
> > Can we add iBatis DAO to Ti (not iBatis Implemnation or SQL MAPs, just
> > DAO). It would reduce # of user questions.
> > Using iBatis DAO, people can implement the DAO anyway (or they could
> > replace the iBatis DAO).
> >
netsql wrote:
Can we add iBatis DAO to Ti (not iBatis Implemnation or SQL MAPs, just
DAO). It would reduce # of user questions.
Using iBatis DAO, people can implement the DAO anyway (or they could
replace the iBatis DAO).
For example, they could use iBatis DAO implementing EJB, or Hibrenate or
Martin Cooper wrote:
If you have *only* the domain model on the server, you'd have to be making
direct remote method calls to model objects from the browser. Don't you have
a servlet in there, that processes and decodes incoming requests, dispatches
to appropriate business objects, and then
On 8/29/05, netsql <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So... how is he wrong? I deployed a rich app... and only domain model is
> on server.
If you have *only* the domain model on the server, you'd have to be making
direct remote method calls to model objects from the browser. Don't you have
a serv
So... how is he wrong? I deployed a rich app... and only domain model is
on server.
What else should be on the server?
If UI (View) is on the client, C (controller has to be there).
.V
Martin Cooper wrote:
That article does indeed indicate that only the model is on the server. But
that's wro
I agree -- Ti can succeed in offering good server-side rich application
support. There will be overlap and ironing out between this approach
and frameworks that try to define an entire application model on the
client, but I think there's a sweet spot to be hit here.
Also (to address an earlie
That article does indeed indicate that only the model is on the server. But
that's wrong. ;-) Check out the first response to that article, labelled
"Marc's Voice". He gets much closer to the truth when he says "The other
thing to note about Model N is that the server side is very similar to Mod
Well the article kind of says that only domain model/dao is on the server.
And MVC is on the client. And that makes sense. So in your example, if
the client requests the XML, then it's RiA. Your's might not be a good
example.
Ajax is a perfect example. Idea was that Ti would do Ajax(clientsid
On 8/29/05, netsql <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As per http://osteele.com/archives/2004/08/web-mvc
>
> I now think if a frameworks is client side rendering (Ajax, JDNC, ...)
> it can't be mixed w/ a server side rednering framework, you can be
> strong in one or the other (and then rig it for the o
Nice article. Sorry, what your question?
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://www.edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx
Yahoo: jmitchtx
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skype: callto://jmitchtx
On Aug 29, 2
As per http://osteele.com/archives/2004/08/web-mvc
I now think if a frameworks is client side rendering (Ajax, JDNC, ...)
it can't be mixed w/ a server side rednering framework, you can be
strong in one or the other (and then rig it for the other).
--
thx,
.V
Broadband interface (RIA) + mai
22 matches
Mail list logo
