On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:04:23 -0800, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frankly, I think that this thread was, until the sardonic and biting > interjection about "very poor etiquette", one of the better ones I've > seen recently. It is interesting that anyone could defend this > objection. (I should say that Hubert's offering is not seen as a > "defense" but as informative.) > > Jack
I wasn't being sarcastic in the least ... I'm not against the exchange. I just feel it could be delivered in a form that's friendlier to everyone. While some of you appreciated the code posting, there are many who don't - I am among them - and it is (historically) extremely poor etiquette. Ideas may be exchanged with minimal code. There are tons of places where code may be displayed - and those alternatives are actually a lot easier to search than this mail archive. Perhaps nowadays it is commonplace for people to make such posts, but it has not always been the case - and it really should not be done. I didn't invent the custom, I just follow it. > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:22:49 -0500, Erik Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Jim Barrows wrote: > > > > >On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:59:59 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Sorry about posting code to the list if that is poor etiquette. I didn't > > >>know of that one. What's the reason for it? My code wasn't too lengthy > > >>and the email can easily be deleted by those that don't care. I just > > >>thought some other newbies (not unlike myself) might find it useful or > > >>thought provoking. Again, if this is against the rules of the list, I am > > >>sorry. > > > > > >Don't worry about it. It's not really, as far as I know anyway. Some > > >people are just cranky. Putting hte code where it can be searched by > > >folks is a good thing. > > > > While I appreciate the points that Craig made (see other recent post) > > about posting copyrighted code and respecting bandwidth, I almost wrote > > a post jut to thank all of you for contributing to this thread, and I > > agree with Jim on this point. I read through all the code in this thread > > and saved it to look at it later. I will abide by the rules of the list > > (assuming I know and understand them of course), but if I have a vote, I > > like to compare code and am always looking for a "rounder wheel"! Maybe > > the Wiki is the best place, but I'm just not in the Wiki "habit". > > Perhaps I should give it a try. Maybe there should be a user (help) list > > for pure user issues (this list), a dev list for those developing Struts > > and related (the dev list), and a third (new) list for discussing > > development strategies related to Struts? Just thinking out loud. I > > think it is somewhat logical to think that the list of lists might grow > > as the product evolves . . . > > > > Erik > > > > >>Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>01/20/2005 11:59 PM > > >>Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List" > > >> > > >> To: Struts Users Mailing List <user@struts.apache.org>, > > >> Dakota Jack > > >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> cc: > > >> Subject: Re: Session Strategy (here's a filter) > > >> > > >>... it is a filter ... notice how it says "implements Filter". The > > >>mapping in web.xml is a dead giveaway too. > > >> > > >>I'd love to know how it detects session timeouts though. Far as I can > > >>tell it will tell people who have yet to have a session created that > > >>they've timed out. ... first trip around the block they shouldn't see > > >>that message. The only way I can think of detecting timeout, as I > > >>mentioned in an earlier post sometime back, is to put a marker of some > > >>kind out (a session cookie) when a person logs in. You could then > > >>tell, by absence of a session and presence of the marker, that the > > >>session timed out. > > >> > > >>... I'd love to see a simpler approach (not that what I suggest is > > >>complex). I don't personally believe you can do it with fewer things > > >>than I've mentioned here. > > >> > > >>... and please *don't* post code! It's very poor etiquette. If > > >>someone solicits something from you, send it to them and them alone - > > >>not the list (unless explicitly asked to do so, and then limit what > > >>you post to only relevant pieces of files). > > >> > > >>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:43:32 -0800, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>I was interested, again, in a filter. > > >>> > > >>>Jack > > >>> > > >>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:41:32 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>Dakota Jack wrote: > > >>>>I was looking for a filter that detected sessions that had expired and > > >>>>rerouted the request to a login or other appropriate page. > > >>>> > > >>>>-------------------------------------------- > > >>>> > > >>>>That's what this does, specifically the following section of code: > > >>>> > > >>>>Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>>>01/20/2005 11:07 AM > > >>>> > > >>>>I was looking for a filter that detected sessions that had expired and > > >>>>rerouted the request to a login or other appropriate page. > > >>>> > > >>>>Jack > > >>-- > > >>Eddie Bush > ------------------------------ > ~Dakota Jack~ -- Eddie Bush --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
