--- Wes Wannemacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 10:42 -0800, Dave Newton wrote:
> > --- Dale Newfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [...] (and therefore none of us that still use emacs could possibly
> > > by good coders) [...]
> > Fixed your typo.
> Don't forget about tho
On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 10:42 -0800, Dave Newton wrote:
> --- Dale Newfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] (and therefore none of us that still use emacs could possibly
> > by good coders) [...]
>
> Fixed your typo.
>
> Dave
>
>
Don't forget about those of us using ed/cat/butterflies
htt
--- Dale Newfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] (and therefore none of us that still use emacs could possibly
> by good coders) [...]
Fixed your typo.
Dave
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional command
CleverSwine wrote:
auto-suggest IDEs...
The combination of your assumption that all "good coders" use IDEs (and
therefore none of us that still use vi could possibly by good coders),
continued posting about the same issue without any additional
contributions to the conversation (this would b
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/StrutsStatics...-tp15595866p15767479.html
Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabbl
2008/2/29, CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> > Err... Does C++ have interfaces at all? All I recall is that C++ has
> > classes.
>
>
> Of course it does. A simple google search
> (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=C%2B%2B+interfaces&btnG=Google+Search)
> would
--- CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> > Err... Does C++ have interfaces at all? All I recall is that C++ has
classes.
>
> Of course it does. A simple google search
>
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=C%2B%2B+interfaces&btnG=Google+Search)
> would have shown you
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:15 AM, CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Chris Pratt wrote:
> > I never said it was a good idea, it's just something that was so common
> > that
> > they decided to make it part of the language.
>
> This statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding
read, I
hope he's not a Struts2 committer. Anyone care to shed some light on his
involvement with Struts2? Is he a committer?
Thanks,
Clever Swine
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/StrutsStatics...-tp15595866p15765459.html
Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabbl
Sounds like a good reason why it isn't possible :).
- Original Message -
From: "Antonio Petrelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List"
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: StrutsStatics...
2008/2/29, CleverSwine &l
--- CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Pratt wrote:
> > I never said it was a good idea, it's just something that was so common
> > that they decided to make it part of the language.
> This statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Java. I
> really hope you are NOT a comm
2008/2/29, CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> In some OO languages (C++ comes to
> mind), the constant interface anti-pattern isn't possible because
> constants
> cannot be defined on interfaces.
Err... Does C++ have interfaces at all? All I recall is that C++ has
classes.
Antonio
attern isn't possible because constants
cannot be defined on interfaces.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/StrutsStatics...-tp15595866p15761878.html
Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---
Musachy Barroso wrote:
I never thought this would generate such a long thread. Yeah we should
fix it, but c'on, we have a ton of bugs to fix and new/cool stuff to
implement :).
musachy
Yeah, this thread is a classic case of non-urgent non-important chatter
(ref Steven R. Covey's book
h
Moving to API compat thread.
Don Brown wrote:
I do agree we need to be much better about how much of our API we
expose to developers, but I think the question of public vs private
API goes beyond the Java semantics and into what a typical Struts user
will encounter. Unless you are a plugin or
I do agree we need to be much better about how much of our API we
expose to developers, but I think the question of public vs private
API goes beyond the Java semantics and into what a typical Struts user
will encounter. Unless you are a plugin or framework developer, it
would be very rare for yo
--- Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don Brown wrote:
> > On 2/22/08, Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hehe. The changes from 2.0 to 2.1 are completely incompatible, so this
> >> change is minor in comparison.
> > I disagree with that statement. For Struts 2 users, t
Don Brown wrote:
On 2/22/08, Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hehe. The changes from 2.0 to 2.1 are completely incompatible, so this
change is minor in comparison.
I disagree with that statement. For Struts 2 users, the changes are
only minor. I think you feel them more
On 2/22/08, Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hehe. The changes from 2.0 to 2.1 are completely incompatible, so this
> change is minor in comparison.
I disagree with that statement. For Struts 2 users, the changes are
only minor. I think you feel them more because you are working
Hehe. The changes from 2.0 to 2.1 are completely incompatible, so this
change is minor in comparison. if we were to use the commonly accepted
versioning scheme of major vs. minor releases, 2.1.x would eventually
become 3.0 when it goes GA. So, I say make all these "break everything"
changes n
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:34 AM, CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> Chris Pratt wrote:
> >
> > I don't know for sure, but that's pretty common practice before Java 5's
> > import static.
> >
>
> I disagree. This was in practice in the '90s, although to say it was
> "common" is a stretch.
--- Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I never thought this would generate such a long thread.
Me neither :/ Really, I just wanted confirmation that it was a legacy
holdover.
I vote to deprecate and move the constants into StrutsConstants.
Dave
--
> then you should at least deprecate it in 2.1.
>
>
>
> +1. But I think that StrutsStatics is only the minor of the problems.
>
> Antonio
>
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
-
patible changes.
>
>
>
> -1. I think that deprecating that interface (and its members), moving the
> constants in the right place, removing StrutsStatics from the "implements"
> directive does not harm anyone.
>
> Antonio
>
rement,
> then you should at least deprecate it in 2.1.
+1. But I think that StrutsStatics is only the minor of the problems.
Antonio
e it in
> > minor point releases. Better wait for the next major point release to
> make
> > incompatible changes.
>
>
>
> -1. I think that deprecating that interface (and its members), moving the
> constants in the right place, removing StrutsStatics from the "implements"
> directive does not harm anyone.
>
> Antonio
>
gt; incompatible changes.
-1. I think that deprecating that interface (and its members), moving the
constants in the right place, removing StrutsStatics from the "implements"
directive does not harm anyone.
Antonio
2008/2/21, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > In the dozens of companies for which I've consulted, I haven't
> > seen it done since a client in the educational textbook industry
> > in 2001.
>
>
> Just to provide a counter-anecdote, in the dozens of companies for which
> I've
> consulted I've s
I say fix it in Struts 3.0. Yes, it's a horrible pattern to make a
programming shortcut. But it's certainly not acceptable to change it in
minor point releases. Better wait for the next major point release to make
incompatible changes.
Paul
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PRO
--- CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Pratt wrote:
> > I don't know for sure, but that's pretty common practice before Java 5's
> > import static.
> I disagree. This was in practice in the '90s, although to say it was
> "common" is a stretch. Much more common has always been to define
--- Adam Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think if you look at StrutsStatics it's not really the constant interface
> antipattern.
>
> It has just 6 constants which are the keys to retrieve the HTTP servlet api
> objects from whichever maps.
That's the con
x27;t seen it done since a client in the educational
textbook industry in 2001.
Adam Hardy wrote:
> I think if you look at StrutsStatics it's not really the constant
> interface antipattern.
>
What?! It is *precisely* the constant interface antipattern. The larger
problem is why this
Actually I'd go one further and say the constant should be a static on the class
to which it has most relevance. Now that reduces typing and improves clarity.
Instead of
StrutsConstants.RESULT_CONSTANT1;
StrutsConstants.ACTION_CONSTANT1;
Action.CONSTANT1;
I think if you look at StrutsSt
, but imho it reduces code clarity.
Al.
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List"
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: StrutsStatics...
--- Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
--- Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/20, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > ...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all over?
>
> IMHO all those "constants" should be scattered to all the needing
> classes, n
--- Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/20, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > ...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all over?
>
> IMHO all those "constants" should be scattered to all the needing
> classes, n
2008/2/20, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all over?
IMHO all those "constants" should be scattered to all the needing
classes, not centralized.
In my past projects, I often had this sort of "statics"
over from the pre-j5 era.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 20, 2008 1:42 PM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all
> over?
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
>
ECTED]> wrote:
> > ...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all over?
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&
implements vs imports vs static imports
Probably just left over from the pre-j5 era.
On Feb 20, 2008 1:42 PM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all over?
On Feb 20, 2008 10:42 AM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all over?
>
>
I don't know for sure, but that's pretty common practice before Java 5's
import static. It allowed any class that "
...why *do* we have StrutsStatics as an interface implemented all over?
Dave
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
42 matches
Mail list logo
