Re: Errors handling

2002-01-04 Thread Dimitri Valdin
Craig, The idea of throwing application exceptions is brand new, so it would be worth rethinking the example program's factoring in the light of this ability. We use such approach even for exceptions which are thrown by host's Cobol programs and it works well. Of cource they are wrapped

Re: [VOTE] Release Struts 1.0.1-rc1 as Struts 1.0.1

2002-01-04 Thread Ted Husted
+1 The tlds and dtds are an exension of the code in the JAR, and should travel with it. Ideally, I think there should be a copy of the license in the JAR, and then another in jakarta-struts-lib.zip alongside the other files. -Ted. Martin Cooper wrote: Yes, I've (mostly) followed the

Re: Forced URL rewriting

2002-01-04 Thread John Yu
Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the enable-ness of the URL rewrite the responsibility of the container, not Struts? Recently, we had a project using Struts with Weblogic. Weblogic has an option in its proprietary weblogic.xml descriptor to turn off URL rewrite. We tried it and it worked. No

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 5692] New: - New Struts Consultant; Mikael E

2002-01-04 Thread bugzilla
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5692. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

Re: [VOTE] Release Struts 1.0.1-rc1 as Struts 1.0.1

2002-01-04 Thread Cedric Dumoulin
Martin Cooper wrote: [ x] +0 I am in favor of the release, but am unable to help support it Sorry to have not enough time to help for this. Cedric -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Forced URL rewriting

2002-01-04 Thread Craig R. McClanahan
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, John Yu wrote: Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 18:09:59 +0800 From: John Yu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Forced URL rewriting Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the enable-ness of

RE: Forced URL rewriting

2002-01-04 Thread Donnie Hale
Craig, I think the point is that WebLogic meets the spec criteria but, for the application in question it was decided to turn off cookie-less support via URL rewriting. Thus users of the application must have cookies enabled. That doesn't reflect at all on the container's spec compliance, just

RE: Forced URL rewriting

2002-01-04 Thread Craig R. McClanahan
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Donnie Hale wrote: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:49:30 -0500 From: Donnie Hale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Forced URL rewriting Craig, I think the point is that WebLogic

Re: Forced URL rewriting

2002-01-04 Thread Ted Husted
The spec says cookies take precedence, so if the application requires cookies, it can just test for cookies. Donnie Hale wrote: It not being a spec issue anymore is the point I was trying to make. I agree with you that using security as the reason is a little silly. However, from the