Oops, forgot to list the time... I was thinking 2PM Eastern time Monday
2/3...
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Carreira
> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 12:23 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [OS-webwork] Xwork 1.0 / Webwork 2.0 design session
>
>
> On the table is the Thread
On the table is the ThreadLocal issue and how to re-introduce it. The
current Xwork code uses an ActionInvocation which is passed to each of
the interceptors and holds the state of the request processing. In order
to make Actions (more) backward compatible in WW 2.0, we need to
re-introduce the Thr
I agree. PropertyTag does too much. In WW 2.0 we're planning on having
ww:property JUST do the output of the value, and have the pushing onto
the value stack be done by
...use value here...
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Beeson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 31,
Ahh ok. Thanks. Read it too quickly.
Regards,
-Andre Mermegas
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Erik Beeson
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 10:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] how to access bean property?
Read Jason's
Read Jason's email again carefully. For that to work, you need to have the
tag inside the body of the first tag. Like I
said, check Jason's example again carefully.
To the developers who don't want to break up PropertyTag, here we see the
problem with a single tag that tries to do too much.
--Er
Title: RE: [OS-webwork] how to access bean property?
Oh,
one thing, I tried pushing the testBean to the top of the value stack by doing
and then accessing it
But the first ww:property is actually outputting,
not pushing the bean to the top of the value stack I think.
com.versiona
Title: RE: [OS-webwork] how to access bean property?
Thanks,
for the help Jason, Great explanation. It’s working now and I’m
back on my way to happily exploring more stuff =D
Regards,
-Andre Mermegas
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Title: RE: [OS-webwork] how to access bean property?
Andre,
You'll want to do ActionContext.getContext() instead of new ActionContext().
ActionContext.getContext() gets the ThreadLocal instance which is populated by the ServletDispatcher.
You'll probably also want to maintain a referenc
I think id is the only thing not looked up, and should be the only thing
not looked up. The reason is that id is a standard attribute to set
something into the page request with a certain name, and it's not
dynamic anywhere else.
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Beeson [mailto:[EMAIL PROT
Incident Information:-
Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Recipients: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:[OS-webwork] how to access bean property?
Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
quarantined because it contained something potentially damaging to the
computers and/or may affect the performance of the
Hey all,
If I'm doing something like:
In my Action.doExecute()
ActionContext ac = new ActionContext();
BeanUtil.setProperties(ac.getParameters(),new TestBean());
TestBean has one property "name".
How do I access the "name" property using the ww taglibs?
doesn't seem to be hitting the bean.
do
I'm talking about webwork 2.0. Should everything be lookedup on the stack?
Pat's TextfieldTag currently doesn't. I just want some clear standard to
be decided upon.
--Erik
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Scott Farquhar wrote:
> Erik,
>
> Which values are not looked up on the stack? I know that "id" isn't (
Erik,
Which values are not looked up on the stack? I know that "id" isn't (in
iterator tag). Anything else?
I don't think that this can be fixed in current webwork, as we would not
be able to maintain backwards compatibility? You should add this as a
feature to webwork 2.0.
Cheers,
Scott
I can tell you MY grievance.. people keep saying "drop it, it's dropped"
and then we keep seeing it go on and on and on and on. Who are you, the
Energizer Bunny?
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Jonathan Revusky wrote:
> Hani Suleiman wrote:
>
> > Alright. EVERYONE JUST IGNORE HIM.
>
> Right. They should fol
Hani Suleiman wrote:
> Alright. EVERYONE JUST IGNORE HIM.
Right. They should follow the fine example you are setting.
> That way he gets to have the last
> word and will go away. I realise of course that he'll need to respond
> to this message,
I read your message in the archive and, yes, I
The biggest complaint that I hear about the ww taglib is the when to and
when not to enclose params in single quotes. Currently, the best method
for figuring this out seems to be to check the source to see if the param
is ever looked up on the stack. Could there be some standard agreement
made as t
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Beeson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux]
>
>
> Jason says 7 jars, Hani says 1, Pat says 2. I have two things to say.
Ummm... No
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:07:54AM +1100, tobyhede wrote:
> +1 to avoiding myriads of jar files
>
> some of the commons projects take this to the extreme - all of a sudden you
> have 500 dependencies, half of which are very small jar files in any case.
> it just makes it incredibly hard for new de
18 matches
Mail list logo
