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 st

RE: Forced URL rewriting

2002-01-04 Thread Donnie Hale
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 standpoint of bookmarking and corporate intranet apps and their corresponding help desk support issues, I can see requiring cookies and disal

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 t

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 t

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 th

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 enabl

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: For additional commands, e-mail:

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 . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

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 mor

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 d

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 w