I believe that it would be best to stick to 1.3.x compatibility for the time
being.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Heng Sin Low" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] xwork suggesti
om: "Heng Sin Low" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 4:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] xwork suggestions
>
>
> > One minor complain though:
> >
> >
> >
> > will will grab the val
Heng,
Can you add this as an issue on jira.opensymphony.com? That way it won't be
overlooked in future versions!
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Heng Sin Low" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [OS
ed.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Maurice C. Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] xwork suggestions
> Patrick,
>
> Easy has nothing to do with it. Adding redundant function
MAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] xwork suggestions
No! one easy solution, which is point 1 below.
On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 05:48 PM, Patrick Lightbody wrote:
This is again a case of making a big deal out of
One minor complain though:
will will grab the value of x and print it althoguh
all I want is to make x avaiable as a request
attribute with name 'xyz'.
Regards,
Low
--- Mike Cannon-Brookes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm with Hani - property tag should stay as is.
>
> IMHO it's a documentatio
a vote on
the official proposal.
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Hani Suleiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] xwork suggestions
> No! one easy solution, which is point 1 below.
&g
;Mike Cannon-Brookes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] xwork suggestions
I'm with Hani - property tag should stay as is.
IMHO it's a documentation problem that
ursday, October 31, 2002 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] xwork suggestions
> I'm with Hani - property tag should stay as is.
>
> IMHO it's a documentation problem that is easily solved - once you
> understand it - it's simple?
>
> For the dummies:
>
> has
> has TWO uses:
>
> 1: will grab the value of x and print it
> 2: ... will grab the value of x and
> make it 'available' between the tags.
>
> That's it!
Actually this is not at all all there is to it. Let me give a small example:
If foo:mytag prints nothing, the above will result in that f
I'm with Hani - property tag should stay as is.
IMHO it's a documentation problem that is easily solved - once you
understand it - it's simple?
For the dummies:
has TWO uses:
1: will grab the value of x and print it
2: ... will grab the value of x and
make it 'available' between the tags.
> That 'clarity' can come across as docs, it doesn't require a non-backward
> compatible code change.
No backwards-incompatible change is needed. Two new tags with more intuitive
names and functionality can be added and property tag deprecated, giving
everyone a seemless migration path (unlike the
While I agree that it's somewhat unintuitive to have one tag serve
these two purposes, I don't think it should be changed. If someone were
confused by how it worked, they'd go to the docs that talk about that
tag, which would in turn describe both modes, if you will. That
'clarity' can come acr
> 1) No - the action tag is useful!
Yea, Pat gave a good creative example of why it's good. I find your argument
very enlightening though.
> 2) Why? The property tag is flexible - not confusing!
Unix has two commands: cd and cat. cd changes directory. cat prints the
contents of a file. Two differe
Wha?
1) No - the action tag is useful!
2) Why? The property tag is flexible - not confusing!
WW has always been about few tags with many uses.
-mike
On 31/10/02 5:41 AM, "boxed" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
> I have two suggestions for XWork that I think are very important.
>
> 1) Re
> My DocumentLoader action pulls up an entire graph of document metadata.
This
> includes "long[] getDocTypes()". However, when I display the document
> metadata, I don't want to show the info type IDs, I want to show the
String
> names of these IDs in the JSP. I consider this a UI issue, and my
>
> Huh? Why is this a bad reason? Having the action tag means you could
> point to regular jsp pages that are webworked, rather than pointing to
> the action. It makes migrating to webwork much smoother.
Ah, that is a good reason yea. Migration from another framework/paradigm was
what I was missing
sibly) on having two tags to replace the PropertyTag. I'll let
others give their feedback on this, I don't really care.
- Original Message -
From: "boxed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:41 AM
Subject: [OS-webwor
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 01:41 PM, boxed wrote:
I have two suggestions for XWork that I think are very important.
1) Remove the action tag.
2) The property tag does two things in WebWork, in XWork we should
have two
tags, one for each thing.
1) The first one is simple enough. The a
I have two suggestions for XWork that I think are very important.
1) Remove the action tag.
2) The property tag does two things in WebWork, in XWork we should have two
tags, one for each thing.
1) The first one is simple enough. The action tag only removes the loose
coupling between the action(s)
20 matches
Mail list logo
