Looks like looking at what is being done with chain
would be the first thing. I have a question and a
comment. If you don't have time for the qeustion,
I certainly will understand.
QUESTION: Component drag and drop?
Is the drag and drop for apps using
the chaing of responsibility framework o
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:26:20 -0700, Michael McGrady wrote:
> PROPOSAL/SUGGESTION
>
>
> If you were interested, we might try doing this as a Struts Branch,
> maybe calling it "Branch" or "Struts Branch", with a really up-to-
> date modular structure along the lines indicated in Stuart Dabbs
> Hallow
You might also want to see:
http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html
http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsJericho
Portlets are part of the planning for Struts.
Michael McGrady
Scott Anderson wrote:
Rob Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you point me to a how-to doc so I can get a feel
for what JSR
Rob Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you point me to a how-to doc so I can get a feel
> for what JSR-168 has to offer?
There's a link to download a PDF containing a few
sample chapters from a book on developing JSR-168
portlets within the following article...
http://www.theserverside.com/
Fundamentally coding changes, I think, refect human needs as much as
technical needs. Even good old procedural programming, which many
college computer science advocates cannot let go of, had, I think, as
its main difficulty the inability of a community to effectively code
with it. So, many o
http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html
http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsJericho
Seem like pretty significant potential changes to me. I think the
problem is that the way struts is currently proposed to change is not
the way that you (and some others) want it to. This is why you must stop
talki
Rob Evans wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:59:26 -0700, Michael McGrady
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rob Evans wrote:
Could be. I for o
It sounds like we are on the same page regarding the nature of the
solution i.e. we're after something that looks like components. I'm
sure Craig and Halloway w
Thanks for your ideas, Matt. Some thoughts on this, relating the
personal issues as much to Struts as possible, follow:
The subtitle of "eXtreme Programming eXplained" is "EMBRACE CHANGE" by
Kent Beck. This is all I am saying. Struts as it looks to v3.0 should
embrace change as potential, wh
Can you point me to a how-to doc so I can get a feel for what JSR-168
has to offer?
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Scott Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > PROPOSAL/SUGGESTION
>
> I was a big fan of the component software model
> advocated by a technology called OpenDoc develop
> PROPOSAL/SUGGESTION
I was a big fan of the component software model
advocated by a technology called OpenDoc developed by
Apple, IBM, and Novell back in the mid 90's...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDoc
Ironically, Steve Jobs killed off this technology
because the thought was that Java
I certainly don't know enough about it to point you at its various pieces and
say, "here's just what you need" (partly because I'm not crystal clear on what
your requirements are). It was mainly just a Pavlovian reaction to discussions
about web component frameworks and designing with IDEs in mind,
Michael -
I would have to say...get working. It is pretty obvious from this and
the dev list that you are very unhappy with struts and its developers.
While struts does some of what you want, it is very lacking for you. I
think it is also obvious that your view of what struts should be does
not
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:01:15 -0400, Kris Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to make sure the bases are covered, have you investigated JSF and found it
> lacking?
I've not. Do you know much about it? I was under the impression that
its purpose in life was to provided support for UI widget
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:59:26 -0700, Michael McGrady
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob Evans wrote:
>
> >Could be. I for one am still trying to nail down the issues. Why is
> >having a single WebApp that utilizes Inversion of Control and plugins
> >better than just having several webapps that use th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would build a framework without ego in the core.
Michael,
What does this mean?
David
Great implementations are eclipsed. Not only being open to or allowing
for this but specifically creating an environment in which it is easy to
do is the idea.
Without specifi
Just to make sure the bases are covered, have you investigated JSF and found it
lacking?
Quoting Rob Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Comments inline
>
>
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:26:20 -0700, Michael McGrady
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have a proposal at the bottom of this email.
> >
> > I
Rob Evans wrote:
Could be. I for one am still trying to nail down the issues. Why is
having a single WebApp that utilizes Inversion of Control and plugins
better than just having several webapps that use the same UI libraries
and abide by the same standards? From experience, I know that this has
no
ady.com> cc:
Subject: Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp
Framework? -- a proposal
1
>-Original Message-
>From: Rob Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:45 AM
>To: Struts Users Mailing List
>Subject: Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
>When it comes to architecture and design, feelings suck. ;-)
You
Comments inline
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:26:20 -0700, Michael McGrady
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a proposal at the bottom of this email.
>
> I know exactly what you want. Struts is a wonderful potential base for
> this. I have been crying for this in Struts, but have only gotten
> resis
Are either Tapestry or Zope the kind of things you're talking about
here? They are both component based web app frameworks. If those are not
what you're talking about, whats the difference?
dave
On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 11:26, Michael McGrady wrote:
> I have a proposal at the bottom of this email.
>
I have a proposal at the bottom of this email.
I know exactly what you want. Struts is a wonderful potential base for
this. I have been crying for this in Struts, but have only gotten
resistence from the more vocal committers and, I think, a failure to see
what the problem is.
Right now Stru
22 matches
Mail list logo
