portal specific. It is up to the developer
with
AquaLogic.
Regards,
Randy Burgess
Sr. Web Applications Developer
Nuvox Communications
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Struts Users Mailing List
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:45:34 -0500
To: Struts Users Mailing L
17:30:38 +0100
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: OT: Alternative to html frames
>
> The most applications are hosted in the intra net. We have another subnet
> with some Websphere servers secured by firewalls but they can all be
> accessed within out domain
L PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:44:17 +0100
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: OT: Alternative to html frames
>
> Hmm, in our case the single applications should not know it they are running
> in a portal or somewhe
>
> > 2008/2/13, Randy Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> I would imagine that it is portal specific. It is up to the developer
> with
> >> AquaLogic.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Randy Burgess
> >> Sr. Web Applications De
Reply-To: Struts Users Mailing List
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:45:34 -0500
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: OT: Alternative to html frames
So that seems to say that it's left to the portlet developers to ensure
there are no naming conflicts, am I understanding that right?
Frank
Sr. Web Applications Developer
> Nuvox Communications
>
>
>
> > From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: Struts Users Mailing List
>
> > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:45:34 -0500
>
> > To: Struts Users Mailing List
> >
2008 09:45:34 -0500
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: OT: Alternative to html frames
>
> So that seems to say that it's left to the portlet developers to ensure
> there are no naming conflicts, am I understanding that right?
>
> Frank
>
> Randy Burge
rtlet.
Regards,
Randy Burgess
Sr. Web Applications Developer
Nuvox Communications
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Struts Users Mailing List
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:36:08 -0500
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: OT: Alternative to html frames
A
uts Users Mailing List
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:36:08 -0500
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: OT: Alternative to html frames
>
> Antonio Petrelli wrote:
>> Frank, you might love this article :-)
>> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/I-am-right-and-the-entire-In
I think it all comes down to whether the "different application/jsp"'s
are in the same domain. If they are, then iFrames might do the trick
nicely. Note that even if they are different subdomains, you can still
do cross-frame scripting, it just requires some playing around with the
document.d
Ya know, this triggers a question of my own:
I have apps that use *tons* of iframes, and there *are* some drawbacks:
1. Without some sort of "onload()" built-in to every page, there's no
way of knowing if the frame has loaded when you update its .src
attribute. With an AJAX filled div, you'd
Hi Frank,
thank you and all others for your answers ;-)
We have a similar aproach like you described. We have an application which
acts as a portal. This application has two frames - one top frame for the
navigation and another frame for hosting the embbeded (independet)
application.
One of this
Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Frank, you might love this article :-)
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/I-am-right-and-the-entire-Industry-is-wrong.aspx
Hehe :)
It's a good example of the typical "taking an idea too far". The world
seems to be divided into the people that say frames are evil and shou
2008/2/11, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> > 2008/2/11, Marc Eckart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> But we are not so happy with this frame aproaches in general. But we
> don't
> >> know how to integrate the different (indepentend) applications
> transparent
> >> to the u
2008/2/11, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Marc, what aren't you happy about with the frame-based design? I've
> done a lot of that over the years and, once you learn to avoid the
> pitfalls, it's worked out great. I admit that in recent years I've
> leaned towards iFrames when frames
's aren't equivalent to frames in most cases... the most important
difference is that of namespacing... when you use frames, there's no
worry of Javascript or DOM element name collisions, which can occur with
simple 's.
Marc, what aren't you happy about with the frame-based design? I've
done
Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2008/2/11, Marc Eckart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
But we are not so happy with this frame aproaches in general. But we don't
know how to integrate the different (indepentend) applications transparent
to the users without frames.
A portlet container?
Regular divs loaded via
2008/2/11, Marc Eckart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But we are not so happy with this frame aproaches in general. But we don't
> know how to integrate the different (indepentend) applications transparent
> to the users without frames.
A portlet container?
Antonio
--
Hi,
I have an offtopic question :-)
We have an intranet portal with a menu where you can start different
applications. The applications run on different containers (e.g. tomcat,
websphere) on different servers.
The portal has a html frameset with two frames. The topframe is for the
portal menu an
19 matches
Mail list logo
