RE: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation

Can't we just add a path parameter to the action definitions in xwork.xml? Michael Blake Day Artistry Studios - e-commerce design, implementation and hosting email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mobile: 770.480.1547 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL

RE: [OS-webwork] Action invocation

I may be late to the conversation, but I just wanted to mention the obvious. Having .action extensions does not expose the fact that a person is using WebWork (or XWork). You can even change the extension to whatever you want (try .dll, hehe). Michael Blake Day Artistry Studios - e-commerce desig

RE: [OS-webwork] Action invocation

+1 here. Michael Blake Day Artistry Studios - e-commerce design, implementation and hosting email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mobile: 770.480.1547 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jason Carreira Sent: Thursday, January 02

Re: [OS-webwork] So long

> After having read all comments on the changes I wanted to make, as well > as some not-so-nice comments by people on #java (boxed and Joe Ottinger > for example), I've decided that it's not a good idea for me to be > architecting XWork. Afaik, the only thing me and epesh said was that we're afrai

Re: [OS-webwork] So long

I would have to say +1 to this - Hani has summarised it exactly. There are many fools on IRC, and as they say a lot - very little of it is useful, most of it is utter crap. Ignore them. I for one don't see why we can't all work together to build a better framework, rather than splintering all the

RE: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation

> > Ah well... personally I don't really care, since I have never used > declarative security and will never use it either. > You might change your tune when you're asked to integrate your CMS product with an existing security framework... Especially if it's a large user base and they've gone

RE: [OS-webwork] Action invocation

> -Original Message- > From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Good point. I agree with that. But, there's still a need to > add roles to > xwork.xml I think, for the cases where the actions are > invoked by other > actions, or by some dispatcher other then a servlet contr

RE: [OS-webwork] So long

Well, I certainly hope you reconsider. Xwork could certainly use your talents. I don't really think the ideas presented here are that far apart. Perhaps you could list what you see as the biggest requirements for your portlet app from Xwork, and we can see where the gaps lie. Jason > -Orig

[OS-webwork] What happens if you forget templates?

Today I created a web app but I forgot to copy the template directory to my context root but what I noticed is that I didn't get any error messages at all so this could be quite a difficult problem to solve without them. Of course I didn't get any HTML for my ui tags so that's a bit of a giveawa

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation [state machine]

Rickard, You said it yourself, you're geared toward a state-machine-type of development. Well I am too, actually... heavily influenced by the OSWorkflow statemachine (I see large parallels between OSWF and WW -- especially with chaining). My point here is that I think you should stay around. With m

Re: [OS-webwork] Action configuration XML [Commands]

On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 11:39:11AM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote: > Chris Nokleberg wrote: > >I don't understand this logic. A property default is a default for form > >parameters, obviously it can change. If you want to fix the value for a > >particular mapping, you add it to actions.xml. > > Not qu

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation [Two configs]

This is something I had mentioned a while back that I wanted to support: - xwork.xml is the actions themselves (GenericDispatcher uses them). - xwork-web.xml is an (optional) file that ServletDispatcher can utilize to set up more rigid settings relating only to web-based settings (URL path restric

Re: [OS-webwork] So long

N! The discussion on here has been VERY pleasant to see, a lot of smart things said and I felt that real progress was being made. Please ignore the idiots on IRC. It's a little boys club where if you don't want to play with them they pout and sulk. Don't make the mistake of assuming that t

Re: [OS-webwork] So long

On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 04:57:20PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote: > So, I'm resigning from the position as architect of XWork. If noone else > is interested I'd suggest that Pat resume his work. [...] > Good luck! Rickard, I hope it's only me to whom this "good luck" sound somewhat sad. I assume y

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation

Damn! A little late :(. - Original Message - From: "matt baldree" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation > Can someone summarize the issues? If you build XWork the way you want what > would be l

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation

Can someone summarize the issues? If you build XWork the way you want what would be left out? I don't think we can build a framework that will meet everyone's needs and I don't think the new framework will be 100% backwards compatible with WW nor do I think it should be. I'd rather see a clean room

[OS-webwork] So long

All, After having read all comments on the changes I wanted to make, as well as some not-so-nice comments by people on #java (boxed and Joe Ottinger for example), I've decided that it's not a good idea for me to be architecting XWork. It seems I and most of you have rather different requiremen

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation

Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote: I have _never_ needed to use the fact that actions can move paths, and I would hasten to guess that 95% of WebWork users don't care either? That might be so, yes. Leave the option open to do both, and we'll satisfy the security problems (by pinning paths). Make the

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation

On 3/1/03 7:25 PM, "Rickard Öberg" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words: > Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote: >> Hrm - no, this is thinking the wrong way mate :) >> >> If webwork defined paths, security would work perfectly right? >> >> So why not have webwork only 'work' if the path is correct (and def

Re: [OS-webwork] Action invocation

Jason Carreira wrote: As opposed to the extra configuration to assign roles to packages and coordinate them with the roles in web.xml? I really don't like the idea of putting security information into xwork. If we pinned packages to URL paths, and protected the paths using J2EE declarative securit

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation

Jason Carreira wrote: The problem with that is keeping them in sync. I'd prefer using one file with namespaces instead. I'm planning on using Xdoclet, I don't know about you. :-) I'd probably use runtime attributes where possible, which is basically the same thing. That does take care of som

RE: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation

> -Original Message- > From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > The problem with that is keeping them in sync. I'd prefer > using one file > with namespaces instead. I'm planning on using Xdoclet, I don't know about you. :-) -

RE: [OS-webwork] Action invocation

> -Original Message- > From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > True, but it's more configuration to do. If it can be avoided > that'd be > nice. As opposed to the extra configuration to assign roles to packages and coordinate them with the roles in web.xml? I really don't

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation

Jason Carreira wrote: Creating an extra interceptor to re-create J2EE declarative security is at least some extra machinery compared to just using what is there. I'm not saying that it's bad, in fact I kind of like the idea of restricting which roles can run packages of actions, but I would prefer

Re: [OS-webwork] Action invocation

Jason Carreira wrote: That's the argument against .action invocation with any path. If we pin actions to certain paths in the config files, as I've proposed, then this is not an issue. True, but it's more configuration to do. If it can be avoided that'd be nice. One nice thing about that is th

RE: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation

> -Original Message- > From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Chris Nokleberg wrote: > >>Here's another way: define the roles that are allowed to access an > >>action in xwork.xml, and create an interceptor that checks > it. Then it > >>can work exactly like how web.xml wo

RE: [OS-webwork] Action invocation

> -Original Message- > From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > The argument against .action invocation, then, is only with regard to > declarative security. Would it be ok to declare what roles > may access it > in xwork.xml? (both on action and package level) That's the ar

Re: [OS-webwork] Action invocation

boxed wrote: I will run the action without a result a few times to start off to make sure it compiles and goes through to success and so forth. I also have some (very few) actions that don't actually have a view at all, but write directly to the servlet output stream. Yes I know it's ugly, I hate

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Action invocation

Chris Nokleberg wrote: Here's another way: define the roles that are allowed to access an action in xwork.xml, and create an interceptor that checks it. Then it can work exactly like how web.xml works, except it can do so for the case where an unsecure action calls a secure action too. That is

Re: [OS-webwork] Action configuration XML [Commands]

Chris Nokleberg wrote: I don't understand this logic. A property default is a default for form parameters, obviously it can change. If you want to fix the value for a particular mapping, you add it to actions.xml. Not quite. In an action there are two "sets" of parameters: initialization parame

[OS-webwork] Building with Eclipse M4?

Anybody here work with Webwork in Eclipse? My eval IDEA license will expire soon and the timing isn't right to commit to that product. I'm on OS X with a beta 1.4 jdk release available. Is there anybody in here that can describe the correct way to import Webwork from CVS into Eclipse. --