Title: Message
Check
out the ParameterAware Interface in WW 1.3. This does what you're looking
for.
-Original Message-From: John
Benediktsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday,
February 27, 2003 2:44 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [OS-webwork]
DynamicActions
Title: Message
I want to use Webwork for a project and I'm
having trouble finding some similar capability to Struts
DynamicActionForms.
I would like to have an Action object be
able to access all fields from a form submission, not only the ones that have
specific bean methods. Is there
> >> In general, this "app created from subapps" is something that needs
> >> to be considered in all aspects. WebWork was monolithic in this
> >> sense, and it'd be good if we can move away from that. As I've
> >> already noted a couple of times, I think in the future it will be
> >> more common t
> >
> > Ok. Then I'd propose that it's removed. :-) Let's keep
> simple things
> > simple. Sometimes you want flexibility and strategy
> possibilities, and
> > sometimes you want rigidity and stability. This is a case of the
> > latter I think.
>
> Interfaces are nice to make mock objects of
> Jason Carreira wrote:
> >> Why is an interface needed here? I thought this was just a
> >> singleton thingy which the app can query. Are there several
> >> implementation possibilities, and if so, why?
> >
> > Probably not needed. I just created them to keep me sane.
>
> Ok. Then I'd propose tha
> -Original Message-
> From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:33 AM
> >
> > The problem here is the case of programmatic configuration.
> If someone
> > writes code to call into the ConfigurationManager to change the
> > configs, then they
Jason Carreira wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking:
1) Remove the ManageableConfiguration Interface (was
ProgrammableConfiguration) - this is just ConfigurationManager 2)
Make RuntimeConfiguration into a class and move that part of
ConfigurationManager over to it
There will always be only one RuntimeC
> -Original Message-
> From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Programmatic configuration
>
>
> Jason Carreira wrote:
> >> Why is an interface needed here? I thought this was just a
> s
Keep up the good work guys. This kind of email explaining a new feature
should go almost as is in the doc.
Just an idea about the interface to stay or to be removed. Could the
interface be changed to contain no method. It becomes just a tagging
interface much like java.io.Serializable.
Cheers.
__
> We'll be starting coding in a month or so - so I guess it's 1.3 for now
ww2 is cool, check it out, give it a whirl, when you see things that
aren't there, add them ;) Meeting minutes are in the Wiki and give a
pretty good idea of the direction to move in.
--Erik
-
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 07:27:37AM -0800, Jason Carreira wrote:
> Unless you're intimately familiar with the inner workings of Xwork (i.e. you're
> Patrick or myself :-)), then I would suggest going with 1.3 for now. If you don't
> need to start coding for a month or two, then it's probably worth
Jason Carreira wrote:
Why is an interface needed here? I thought this was just a
singleton thingy which the app can query. Are there several
implementation possibilities, and if so, why?
Probably not needed. I just created them to keep me sane.
Ok. Then I'd propose that it's removed. :-) Let's kee
> -Original Message-
> From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Why is an interface needed here? I thought this was just a singleton
> thingy which the app can query. Are there several implementation
> possibilities, and if so, why?
>
Probably not needed. I just created the
13 matches
Mail list logo
