On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:48:13 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More importantly though, where I think it differs in a material way, is
> the fact that my solution gives you the ability to expose services but
> still use all the resources of your container, your application and
What steps did you take?
Did you recompile your application with the new jars?
Did you update the .tlds? .dtds?
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
EdgeTech, Inc.
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx
- Original Message -
From: "Dakota Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts
None, which is the biggest problem. I usually start Tomcat as a
service and in this case the service bombs without logging what when
wrong. Tomcat is not the problem. It logs fine with Struts 1.1.
Perhaps I made a mistake with how I set things up. If you don't have
anything specific for Struts
What is the problem? What errors are you seeing?
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
EdgeTech, Inc.
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx
- Original Message -
From: "Dakota Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List"
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 1:18 AM
Subj
Are there any guides for upgrading from 1.1 to 1.2.6? I did what
should be obvious and had no success.
Jack
--
--
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~
"You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep."
~N
Don't worry about reinventing the wheel, Frank. Even little kids do
that. Inventing the wheel is nothing. The real difficulty was the
axel, bearings, etc. ;-)
Jack
--
--
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~
"Yo
Yah, you're right. But what gets me going is not code issues. I
could care less about disagreements about that. I should ignore
things like " No, as usual, you miss my point. ", but I just cannot
get used to that sort of thing, it seems. I'll try harder to ignore
them. I am sure my getting tic
Thanks, Wendy. Much appreciated. I hadn't really checked
LazyActionForm out, because I am using 1.1. Now, I guess, I have to
see what is required to step up to 1.2.6.
Jack
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:18:54 -0700, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Dakota Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
What makes this sort of interface acceptable?
package java.io;
public interface Serializable {
}
Instead of, maybe...
public interface Serializable {
public final boolean isSerializable {
return true;
}
}
-Original Message-
From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EM
What makes this sort of interface acceptable?
package java.io;
public interface Serializable {
}
Instead of, maybe...
public interface Serializable {
public final boolean isSerializable {
return true;
}
}
-Original Message-
From: Dakota Jack [mailto:[EM
Has anybody experienced the problem described below ?
Thanks for help!
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List"
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 11:27 PM
Subject: Struts commons logging and debugging
Hi,
I am using struts 1.1 with Weblogic 7. I am
Wow, this is getting a little hostile fellas...
It's not like we're trying to decide whether Heidi Klum is hotter than
Tyra Banks (she is, but not by much), and we're not trying to decide
whether Enterprise should be cancelled (I say one more season to right
the ship), and it's not like we're tr
Will Stranathan wrote:
Not to show how terribly behind the times I am, but isn't that precisely
one of the things Axis does?
To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I don't know much about Axis, so
I'm not sure I can comment. But, being as how not really knowing what
I'm talking about has neve
From: "Dakota Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
However, this is impossible because Struts requires that the form have
a getter with the name of the property value, i.e. getWhatever() for
"whatever". Anyone have a good idea(er) on how to do this without
changing the Struts code?
Struts has LazyValidatorFo
I would like to do something like:
''
However, this is impossible because S
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:49:56 +0100, Leon Rosenberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think the whole thing comes down to Leon thinking that
> > classes cannot implement a constant interface, which they can
> > and, unfortunately do. The important thing, however, is that
> > they can and that me
Does anybody have a good example of an ActionForm/ combo that works? I've been banging my head against
a wall for a week now trying to figure out what the issue is. With
tracing turned on, the Struts RequestProcessor IS receiving a
String[], but when BeanUtils attempts to call the setters in m
Not to show how terribly behind the times I am, but isn't that
precisely one of the things Axis does? You pop a war file into your
container, add your existing business code, and voila, standard java
methods are exposed as web services?
Not saying your plans won't cure cancer, but are you rein
> I think the whole thing comes down to Leon thinking that
> classes cannot implement a constant interface, which they can
> and, unfortunately do. The important thing, however, is that
> they can and that means that your design will be flawed if
> you do that.
>
> Am I getting you right, L
> I think the whole thing comes down to Leon thinking that
> classes cannot implement a constant interface, which they can
> and, unfortunately do. The important thing, however, is that
> they can and that means that your design will be flawed if
> you do that.
>
> Am I getting you right, L
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:39:47 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Which is why the use of an interface instead of a class makes
> >>no sense. It merely makes bad coding possible and does
> >>nothing else for you.
>
> Jack, your not saying using an interface in general is bad I
Leon Rosenberg wrote:
May I ask You what is the actual goal of your project?
"This project provides a simple mechanism whereby existing business logic
components of a Struts-based application can be exposed as rudimentary Web
Services without the need to change any existing application code."
Hmm,
Hello Frank,
May I ask You what is the actual goal of your project?
"This project provides a simple mechanism whereby existing business logic
components of a Struts-based application can be exposed as rudimentary Web
Services without the need to change any existing application code."
Hmm, I don'
Hello Frank,
May I ask You what is the actual goal of your project?
"This project provides a simple mechanism whereby existing business logic
components of a Struts-based application can be exposed as rudimentary Web
Services without the need to change any existing application code."
Hmm, I don'
Which is why the use of an interface instead of a class makes
no sense. It merely makes bad coding possible and does
nothing else for you.
Jack, your not saying using an interface in general is bad I hope?!? :)
This is an interesting discussion, but obviously off topic, so I've
marked my respon
Dakota Jack wrote:
Hello, Frank,
I really think this project is the creme d' la creme. Good show! I
definitely will use this and might contribute, if I come up with
anything useful. I don't think there is any issue with melding this
and chain.
Thanks Jack, I appreciate it! I'd of course appreci
> Which is why the use of an interface instead of a class makes
> no sense. It merely makes bad coding possible and does
> nothing else for you.
I have to disagree.
If I have a constant pool in a class, i have to protect it from
instantiation (giving it private constructor) and give it a spe
> Which is why the use of an interface instead of a class makes
> no sense. It merely makes bad coding possible and does
> nothing else for you.
I have to disagree.
If I have a constant pool in a class, i have to protect it from
instantiation (giving it private constructor) and give it a spe
Which is why the use of an interface instead of a class makes no
sense. It merely makes bad coding possible and does nothing else for
you.
Jack
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:11:53 +0100, Leon Rosenberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't say it's a question of preference, the 'second approach'
To summarize Joshua Bloch,
Once you use an interface for constants, you allow users of that
interface to implement the interface to access the constants.
However, that a class uses a constant internally is an implementation
detail. The combination of these two things means that an
implementation
Hello, Frank,
I really think this project is the creme d' la creme. Good show! I
definitely will use this and might contribute, if I come up with
anything useful. I don't think there is any issue with melding this
and chain.
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:04:00 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti
<[EMAIL PROTEC
> The thread initiation example was ok according to bloch.
Sorry, small correction, the thread example wasn't ok according to bloch,
but since anyone in the world, including mr. Bloch himself, are using
interfaces to export constants, i think it's considered ok...
> The thread initiation example was ok according to bloch.
Sorry, small correction, the thread example wasn't ok according to bloch,
but since anyone in the world, including mr. Bloch himself, are using
interfaces to export constants, i think it's considered ok...
Because he defines interfaces as class definition / object pattern solely.
Using interfaces for constant definition doesn't fit this purpose.
However, it was not ment for this case:
public interface MyInterface {
public static final String YES = "yes";
}
What you shouldn't define in int
Because he defines interfaces as class definition / object pattern solely.
Using interfaces for constant definition doesn't fit this purpose.
However, it was not ment for this case:
public interface MyInterface {
public static final String YES = "yes";
}
What you shouldn't define in int
I agree about chain...
I just took a look it a week or so ago, just a few minutes looking over
it (actually, I forget who it was, but someone posted a very nice
summary on it a week or two ago on this very list). I thought about how
to get the same effect as my project within that paradigm, and
David, I'm snowed in today here in Pennsylvania, so I can't go out and
get that book :)
Can you enumerate some of the reasons Bloch advocates this? It seems
like a reasonable thing to suggest, I'd like to know his rationale for
it though.
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Archit
Sounds like an interesting project. Once 1.3 is a bit more stable but
before it's released I will look for a good way to integrate JDNC
(Swing WebStart) into 1.3 so I will keep an eye on. Chain is very simple
and very powerfull.
.V
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Just wanted to drop a note to let
It is worth taking a look at the excellent book 'Effective Java' by Joshua
Bloch - he outlines a number of reasons for avoiding the constant interface
pattern and instead advocates the use of a constant utility class as in..
public class MyInterface {
public static final String YES = "yes";
}
I wouldn't say it's a question of preference, the 'second approach' is an
absolute NOGO and banned by each and every code conventions and code style
book.
Regards
Leon
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 22. Januar 2005 16
I wouldn't say it's a question of preference, the 'second approach' is an
absolute NOGO and banned by each and every code conventions and code style
book.
Regards
Leon
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 22. Januar 2005 16
I'm not sure there's a "better" answer... I'd say I see the first
approach used more often... In fact, I'm not sure I can think of an
instance where I've seen the second approach *IF* we're talking about an
interface specifically for storing constants... Obviously when your
extending an interfa
In Java, sometimes you would define an interface containg the constants:
public interface MyInterface {
public static final String YES = "yes";
}
To access the contants, there are two ways
public class WayOne {
public void myMethod(){
String yes = MyInterface.YES;
43 matches
Mail list logo
