On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 01:02:45PM -0500, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
> My point precisely. I think, given the current culture of XWork, we're
> looking at WW 2.0 (major revision change) instead of XWork... and the
> "webwork" name becomes appropriate.
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Michael Blake Day wrote:
My point precisely. I think, given the current culture of XWork, we're
looking at WW 2.0 (major revision change) instead of XWork... and the
"webwork" name becomes appropriate.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Michael Blake Day wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you all rename WebWork to XWork
> be
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you all rename WebWork to XWork
because WebWork was a misnomer? If the framework remains web-centric, why
not just call it WebWork 1.4?
Blake Day
>
> On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 03:29 AM, Rickard Öberg wrote:
>
>> This is a very difficult question. Separ
Rickard,
This has been brought up before, I think, but I'm not sure it was answered
well enough. What about people that want to use XML, Velocity, Jasper
Reports, or some other view technology?
You are using JSP to include the actions, but how would you do that with
XML, for example?
Blake Day
k Lightbody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 11:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] XWork: core concepts
>
>
> I would highly recommend against going down this path.
> Otherwise, just focus on WebWork 1.4. Plus, even if all our
Making unnecessary changes, IMHO, is definitely 'making it unpleasant'.
While I see that backward compatibility is too hard to keep (or so I'm
told) given all that people want xwork to be, I really dislike the
approach of change for changes sake. I deliberately avoided the very
early versions o
No one is going to make it unpleasant... you can be sure of that. It'll be
easier and more pleasant for everything. If you look at the CVS, I think
you'll agree. Today I'm going to put in an Interceptor that reads a
components.xml file, which contains a list of "components", and pulls three
things
boxed wrote:
It could be possible to add a flag for whether includes are mandatory or
not.
Seems like this is exactly what interceptors are for. You don't want to have
actions accessible directly from a url? Then add the interceptor that
prevents it.
Good point. That would work.
/Rickard
-
;matt baldree" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] XWork: core concepts
> +1
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Hani Suleiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 09:29:33AM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> Peter Kelley wrote:
> >The other thing we might want to address is
> >whether or not XWork will be somewhat seperated at the core from the
> >web.
>
> This is a very difficult question. Separating it from the javax.servlet
> API sho
> A little poll:
As long as you are aware that any result from this poll is basically
meaningless I'm fine with this. It was pretty obvious last time this type of
thing was asked on the mailing list (URLTag) and it was acted on the result,
that the response that was given was grossly misleading. B
> It could be possible to add a flag for whether includes are mandatory or
> not.
Seems like this is exactly what interceptors are for. You don't want to have
actions accessible directly from a url? Then add the interceptor that
prevents it.
Anders Hovmöller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://boxed.killing
+1
- Original Message -
From: "Hani Suleiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] XWork: core concepts
On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 03:29 AM, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> This is
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, [ISO-8859-1] Rickard Öberg wrote:
> Hani Suleiman wrote:
> > I strongly suspect that swing/non web usage makes up 1% or less of all
> > the users. Lets not make this unpleasant for the silent majority just to
> > win a marketing line or two or some coolness points by saying 'w
Hani Suleiman wrote:
I don't use any of those and am quite unlikely to eve ruse them. Reason:
I use app clients. webwork/xwork to me is ALL about being web only, and
its role is to handle view related stuff and marshall things for the
backend. EJBs do all the actual 'meat'. Appclients for me pr
On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 03:29 AM, Rickard Öberg wrote:
This is a very difficult question. Separating it from the
javax.servlet API should be possible, but overall I have the feeling
that trying to make a *too* generic solution might be crippling.
A little poll:
*) How many have acti
om: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Rickard Öberg
> Sent: den 11 januari 2003 09:30
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] XWork: core concepts
>
>
> Peter Kelley wrote:
> > Good to have you back
>
> I'm not back
I use (as does Jira) the same action served by both ServletDispatcher and
also WebWorkExecutor (part of OSWorkflow).
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Rickard Öberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [O
Peter Kelley wrote:
Good to have you back
I'm not back. I'm trying to see whether it's any point in me restarting
the XWork.
Are views a core concept ?
Tricky one. Yes, I guess they should be, somehow.
The other thing we might want to address is
whether or not XWork will be somewhat sepera
Philipp Meier wrote:
These are the core concepts that I can think of. Now, for my own
portlet-ish needs (which I hope will be more common for others too in
the future) the following applies:
* Actions and Components, and their resulting views, are ALWAYS called
through a servlet include. This m
Rickard,
These are great, I've placed them on the Wiki (Which is now linked from the
main site, yay!).
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Rickard Ã-berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WebWork" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:59 AM
Subje
On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 20:59, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> All,
>
> Since quite a few of you disagreed with my resignation as XWork
> architect, I've given some thought to how it would be possible to merge
> my requirements with those that you have. It might be possible to do it,
> and if so I would r
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:59:06AM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
> These are the core concepts that I can think of. Now, for my own
> portlet-ish needs (which I hope will be more common for others too in
> the future) the following applies:
> * Actions and Components, and their resulting views, ar
> * Actions and Components, and their resulting views, are ALWAYS called
> through a servlet include.
I find this rather unprovoced myself. I see that you don't want to reveal
that xwork is being used and that actions shouldn't be directly accessible
from a URL, but doing this by demanding a serv
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, [UTF-8] Rickard Ãberg wrote:
> All,
>
> Since quite a few of you disagreed with my resignation as XWork
> architect, I've given some thought to how it would be possible to merge
> my requirements with those that you have. It might be possible to do it,
> and if so I would rec
All,
Since quite a few of you disagreed with my resignation as XWork
architect, I've given some thought to how it would be possible to merge
my requirements with those that you have. It might be possible to do it,
and if so I would reconsider re-starting my work on XWork. I'd like to
begin wit
26 matches
Mail list logo
