On 3/10/06, Claude Brisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le vendredi 10 mars 2006 à 08:04 -0800, Nathan Bubna a écrit : > > well, if you remember, the whole project was birthed out of the desire > > to use Velocity with Struts. :) > > We evolved from monkeys after all...
:) > > > What about tools pooling ? > > > > that's still in the back of my mind. i got pretty far along the path > > of implementing this a few years ago in a local tree, but it quickly > > became clear that i couldn't make it B.C. or work for GenericTools > > without just going to 2.x. i've also been demotivated by the > > improvements to garbage collection and instantiation of objects in > > newer JVMs. still, if we're going to work on 2.x, i'm willing to dig > > up that old code. it should be easier now, especially with idea #2. > > if/when we get to this, are you willing to help? > > Sure! > > > > Also, do you remember my proposal to have regexp scopes for tools? The > > > idea was that regexp scopes are thinner than the request scope: tools > > > are instanciated only if the URL matches the regexp. I'm quite sure that > > > the performance issue is not that great for compiled regexps. > > > > oh, yeah. i totally forgot about that. it's a pretty nifty idea. > > i'll keep it in mind, so i don't make any changes that would make that > > really hard to do. but again, it's not a big itch for me. help would > > be great. :) > > Of course. Is it useful to code it with the actual codebase or should I > wait for some changes of yours? on both this and the pooling, give me a little time to create a VELTOOLS_2 branch and start checking in some of the hacks i've been making. especially the Idea #2 stuff and the new VelocityView stuff that i've pulled out of the VVS. > > > Otherwise - VelocityView is a minimal web framework - as such, it deals > > > with some problematics that are more linked to standard webapp concerns > > > than to Velocity itself. So my question: To be able to provide a > > > ready-to-use webapp, should the view tools adress standard web > > > problematics like validation, authentication, and the like? > > > > sorry, but i have no plans to turn VelocityView into a web framework. > > i'm actually mildly opposed to that; i like using it as just a view > > layer. there are others that solve the other pieces and integrate > > with VelocityView just fine. if you or others want to build a > > framework around the VelocityView layer, that's fine, but i think > > it'll have to be a separate project. > > That's not really what I meant - I really like the "bottom-up" approach > of the tools and its open spirit, so better keep it instead of proposing > yet another framework... I was rather thinking to some way of gathering > some standard patterns a la "build your own framework", like having a > minimalist ActionFilter or AuthenticationFilter along with the > VelocityViewServlet but maybe you're right that it should be separate. I > still hope we can elaborate on this subject around here. sure. far be it from me to stifle such an effort. i'm even a bit interested in it. just know that my intention is to keep VelocityView as exactly that--a Velocity-based view layer. so, any controller/model stuff will probably have to be a separate project. > > Claude > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
