+1 for Josh's suggestion
Josh Canfield wrote:
I've always just used AppModule...
How about:
look for FilterNameModule
look for AppModule
Throw exception can't find FilterNameModule or AppModule
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Name-of-application-module-class
We're using a different filter name than app. It would not be a good thing
to remove support for this, potentially lots of bad press for T5. It's very
important that any upgrade from 5.1 to 5.x can be done in minutes or hours,
without frustration. I even found the upgrade from 5.0.18 to 5.1.0.5 to
+1 easier + backwards compatible
Josh Canfield wrote:
I've always just used AppModule...
How about:
look for FilterNameModule
look for AppModule
Throw exception can't find FilterNameModule or AppModule
Josh
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Howard Lewis Ship hls...@gmail.com wrote:
Seems
+1 for Josh's suggestion as well.
Backward compatibility is a must. If both modules are present, the old
behaviour (FilterNameModule) should take precedence.
Piero
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:41:17 -0300, Kalle Korhonen
kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com wrote:
Agree with Igor. Ok, so it might trip up a few new users, but at least
it fails fast and the reason is very understandable.
It doesn't fails, as no warning or error message is shown when the default
+1
I'm quite new to Tapestry, and each tutorial has a different way of doing
something. They all seem to work, but I'm still in a bit of no-mans-land
with why it all works. This will come with time though.
For instance, three weeks ago I started with the Tapestry for
non-believers tutorial
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Howard Lewis Ship hls...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Josh Canfield joshcanfi...@gmail.com wrote:
I've always just used AppModule...
How about:
look for FilterNameModule
look for AppModule
Throw exception can't find FilterNameModule or
On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Howard Lewis Ship
hls...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Josh Canfield joshcanfi...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've always just used AppModule...
How about:
look for FilterNameModule
look for
Seems like we keep hitting the error where people change web.xml,
rename their filter, and are confused that their AppModule is no
longer loaded.
I think the way that T5 locates the module class from the filter name
is over-engineered.
I think it should just be fixed as AppModule, in the
On Mar 10, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
Seems like we keep hitting the error where people change web.xml,
rename their filter, and are confused that their AppModule is no
longer loaded.
That is precisely my issue! IT WORKS! Thanks.
I think the way that T5 locates the module
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Robert Hailey rob...@cmediacorp.com wrote:
On Mar 10, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
Seems like we keep hitting the error where people change web.xml,
rename their filter, and are confused that their AppModule is no
longer loaded.
That is
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:05:22 -0300, Robert Hailey rob...@cmediacorp.com
wrote:
On Mar 10, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
I think the way that T5 locates the module class from the filter name
is over-engineered.
I think it should just be fixed as AppModule, in the services
I've always just used AppModule...
How about:
look for FilterNameModule
look for AppModule
Throw exception can't find FilterNameModule or AppModule
Josh
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Howard Lewis Ship hls...@gmail.com wrote:
Seems like we keep hitting the error where people change web.xml,
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Josh Canfield joshcanfi...@gmail.com wrote:
I've always just used AppModule...
How about:
look for FilterNameModule
look for AppModule
Throw exception can't find FilterNameModule or AppModule
That's making it more complicated, not less.
Josh
On Wed,
A fixed name like AppModule would have been a much better decision but it
is just too late. We should *never* deprecate or remove any of the naming
conventions. There are a lot of online articles and few books on T5
describing the convention. Just imagine a frustration of someone who just
read an
Agree with Igor. Ok, so it might trip up a few new users, but at least
it fails fast and the reason is very understandable. Why remove
additional flexibility that is already there. The simplest solution is
to emphasize this in the documentation with bold letters and be done
with it.
Kalle
On
I agree and I favor Josh's suggestion. I don't agree with Howard that it's making things more
complicated. Just in code but that's none of the users' business. We could just have this fallback
but only document the new behaviour.
Uli
On 11.03.2010 08:17, Igor Drobiazko wrote:
A fixed name
17 matches
Mail list logo
