Joseph Ottinger wrote:
I'd prefer adding it to the wiki or the current release of WW, since there
are some users who actually use what's there now as opposed to vapourware,
even though the vapourware is promising.
Didn't you resign from OpenSymphony? Or was it just that you stopped
doing things
Robert Nicholson wrote:
If I quickly hit the the submit button twice what happens?
What guarantee is there that the execution of both actions isn't
interleaved?
Once the execution of the first submit has begun it is physically
impossible for a second to begin since the framework has no idea wh
I'd prefer adding it to the wiki or the current release of WW, since there
are some users who actually use what's there now as opposed to vapourware,
even though the vapourware is promising.
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, matt baldree wrote:
> I have the code ;). I can add it if it is what people want but
Title: Re: [OS-webwork] RC2?
I’m all for it!
-mike
On 17/1/03 11:33 AM, "matt baldree" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
Are we ready to push out another release candidate? I think it would be nice to get the recent performance patches out the door.
-Matt
I have the code ;). I can add it if it is what people want but Rickard has a
point in trying to make this more automatic without adding a manual field. I
guess we could have the old fashion way and if/when the portlet framework
develops we can use it.
-Matt
- Original Message -
From: "Rob
Are we ready to push out another release candidate?
I think it would be nice to get the recent performance patches out the
door.
-Matt
Does that field also put the token into the session? Where's the code
that
adds the token to the session?
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 01:23 AM, matt baldree wrote:
no just added a hidden input field. this really isn't a ui tag.
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Carreira" <[EMAIL
Title: RE: [OS-webwork] Woohoo!
Can you share with us the justification you used for using WebWork instead of Struts? Others may find it useful. Perhaps you've already done that and I accidently deleted the email. If so, could you resend it to me?
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason
Can you summarize the points of that presentation?
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 09:12 PM, Jason Carreira wrote:
So we had our Webwork vs. Struts talk today, and I was able to convince
people here that there was sufficiently enough better about WW to make
us use it instead of Struts, even t
This was the approach I just posted. It's the approach I first saw in
the Duane Fields Manning JSP book.
Thinking about this can it work?
You cannot guarantee the second submit is performed after the first
action has had a chance to remove
the session token can you?
On Wednesday, January 15, 2
If I quickly hit the the submit button twice what happens?
What guarantee is there that the execution of both actions isn't
interleaved?
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 07:45 AM, Rickard Öberg wrote:
Jason Carreira wrote:
I remember Rickard was talking about something to prevent 2 submits,
I think the only reason Struts needs the ui:form is to associate the
form to the form bean.
I'm against the idea of a ui:form tag. ie. mandatory use of WW UI tags
for proper behaviour.
Struts form beans don't work unless you use their UI tags.
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 01:28 AM, Jason
The way this is typically done is that as the form is generated a token
is placed into
the session and a hidden field is generated that matches this token.
When the action
is executed it is valid when the two tokens match. After the first
execution the session
token is removed. Therefore on subs
For people using orion, or any other appserver that doesn't
automatically reload non-servlet classes in WEB-INF/classes, I've
written an action reloader that reloads action classes if they're
modified.
More details at: http://www.opensymphony.com:8668/space/fate
Feedback appreciated!
Hani
Hi Jason,
Congrats! I had that same conversation 3 weeks ago with my
management. Things are really cooking now.
Regards,
Kirk Rasmussen
Lucasfilm Ltd.
>
> So we had our Webwork vs. Struts talk today, and I was able
> to convince
> people here that there was sufficiently enough better about W
So we had our Webwork vs. Struts talk today, and I was able to convince
people here that there was sufficiently enough better about WW to make
us use it instead of Struts, even though Struts is the "standard", of
sorts! Cool.
Off to catch a plane home...
--
Jason Carreira
Technical Architect, No
Konstantin Priblouda wrote:
I like to develop [kind of] portal application with
some kind of portlets which could be minimized
/maximized
/ shuffled around etc.
( www.bejug.org is a good visual example of what I
like to achive )
So I'm curenlty diging around to solutions that are
already there.
Hi all,
I like to develop [kind of] portal application with
some kind of portlets which could be minimized
/maximized
/ shuffled around etc.
( www.bejug.org is a good visual example of what I
like to achive )
So I'm curenlty diging around to solutions that are
already there.
I looked in opensym
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
But if they go back to that form, not by clicking the back button, but
through navigation links, the url "foobar.html?foo=bar" still won't work.
Sure it does. If you click something other than foobar.html, then that
association is removed. When the form is rendered agai
Jason Carreira wrote:
Ok, I'm confused. So now we have to intercept all requests, not just
the ones for *.action?
Either that or limit to .action. I guess it depends on how you define
web.xml, i.e. what you put the filter that handles this on.
Where is this temporary association between
URLs a
But if they go back to that form, not by clicking the back button, but
through navigation links, the url "foobar.html?foo=bar" still won't work. We
need sometime random/unique with each page generation so that they can still
use the form when they don't do something silly like press the back button
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
I'm a bit confused -- how does this scale to multiple users on the system at
the same time? "foobar.html?foo=bar" doesn't seem very unique? Is this on a
a per-session basis?
Either per-session or per-user (i.e. a cookie is used to determine what
set of URL's has been as
> -Original Message-
> From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Example:
>
>
>
> would generate the following URL:
> foobar.html?foo=bar
>
> When the server runs foobar.html it first executes "blahblah"
> and makes
> the result available somehow for the rendering proces
> > So you get URLs like:
> >
http://www.myhost.com/some/path/wfjIFEOwijofOEIWjfIOWEkaAIoqjklnfoSyEj?foo=b
ar
>
> No.
>
> Example:
>
>
>
> would generate the following URL:
> foobar.html?foo=bar
>
> When the server runs foobar.html it first executes "blahblah" and makes
> the result available
agree. sounds cleaner to me than current solutions.
- Original Message -
From: "Rickard Öberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Hidden token
> Jason Carreira wrote:
> > I remember Rickard was talking about some
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 11:52:16AM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> Philipp Meier wrote:
> >Does this mean that when I use the ww:form tag, the target url will be
> >pushed / popped?
>
> Not sure what you mean by "pushed/popped". XWork would have an
> association between user/URL and actions. When
Philipp Meier wrote:
Does this mean that when I use the ww:form tag, the target url will be
pushed / popped?
Not sure what you mean by "pushed/popped". XWork would have an
association between user/URL and actions. When that user hits a URL the
association is used, and then removed.
/Rickard
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 11:06:58AM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> Philipp Meier wrote:
> >Hmmm, doest this mean, the jsp tag does sth. like
> >session.getTokenStack().push(new RandomToken()) and the action compares
> >the value passed in the hidden field to getTokenStack().pop()?
>
> There would b
Erik Beeson wrote:
There would be no hidden field. When the URL is generated that URL is
associated with the actions to be run. There's no way to figure out from
the URL what actions will be executed.
So you get URLs like:
http://www.myhost.com/some/path/wfjIFEOwijofOEIWjfIOWEkaAIoqjklnfoSyEj?fo
> There would be no hidden field. When the URL is generated that URL is
> associated with the actions to be run. There's no way to figure out from
> the URL what actions will be executed.
So you get URLs like:
http://www.myhost.com/some/path/wfjIFEOwijofOEIWjfIOWEkaAIoqjklnfoSyEj?foo=bar
And then
Philipp Meier wrote:
Hmmm, doest this mean, the jsp tag does sth. like
session.getTokenStack().push(new RandomToken()) and the action compares
the value passed in the hidden field to getTokenStack().pop()?
There would be no hidden field. When the URL is generated that URL is
associated with the
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 08:45:53AM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> Jason Carreira wrote:
> >I remember Rickard was talking about something to prevent 2 submits, but
> >I'm not sure what it was...
>
> I proposed the ability to associate URL's with actions. When the URL is
> requested the action is e
boxed wrote:
I proposed the ability to associate URL's with actions. When the URL is
requested the action is executed and the association is removed. This
removes the need for any Javascript solution or any hidden fields or any
such tricks.
Would the result of this execution be stored so that th
> I proposed the ability to associate URL's with actions. When the URL is
> requested the action is executed and the association is removed. This
> removes the need for any Javascript solution or any hidden fields or any
> such tricks.
Would the result of this execution be stored so that the secon
34 matches
Mail list logo
