On 5/2/05, Sergey Livanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I liked the smartclient technology very much! It's great!
> Just wondering if there will be a similar possibility in
> Java Server Faces?
> Can I combine the capabilities of JSF and AJAX ?
Yes.
The general idea is that you encapsulate the
I liked the smartclient technology very much! It's great!
Just wondering if there will be a similar possibility in
Java Server Faces?
Can I combine the capabilities of JSF and AJAX ?
RR> Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) wrote the following on 4/19/2005 5:30 AM:
>> I also think that a well-designed web
Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) wrote the following on 4/19/2005 5:30 AM:
I also think that a well-designed web-UI does not need JS at all...
Sorry to jump on the train late, but the above is completely BS. If you
want to use standard HTML, then there will be some things you will HAVE
to do with Javasc
Heh. Normally I hate stuff like this, but for some reason, that one was
so silly it just cracked me up. Must be because I just woke up. :)
Erik
Vic Cekvenich (netsql) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think
all salient points have been made.
Agree.
It's almost friday:
http://www.moronland.com/i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think
all salient points have been made.
Agree.
It's almost friday:
http://www.moronland.com/image.php?media=Apple%20Weed
.V
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail
dead and needn't be flogged any
more.
Dennis
"Vic Cekvenich (netsql)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: news <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
04/21/2005 08:58 AM
Please respond to
"Struts Users Mailing List"
To
user@struts.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: AJAX: Whoa, Nellie!
Craig McClanahan wrote:
The 3000 or so people that are here want to be able to ask questions
about using Struts
IMO, using Struts with client side technologies such as .js, dojo and
ajax is on topic.
.V
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
ds...djsuarez
-Original Message-
From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 4:31 PM
To: David Suarez
Cc: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: AJAX: Whoa, Nellie!
David Suarez wrote:
> Saw the flood of these AJAX messages and was interested so I
What are you talking about Axel?
On 4/20/05, Axel Sachmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey - please write to the Mailing List and no CC please.
>
> Thx Axel
>
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>
> > I apologize... I was not paying attention and didn't realize this was
> > on the users list. There ha
Hey - please write to the Mailing List and no CC please.
Thx Axel
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
I apologize... I was not paying attention and didn't realize this was
on the users list. There has simultaneously been a thread about this
on the user list and the dev list (we were told it was appropriate
I noticed that the last few days there were four and five posts to
this list, so the damage should be minimal. I am not going to state
the obvious I noticed the following Shale thread here as well.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-user&m=111272767800458&w=2
Let's keep a clean ship, shipm
I apologize... I was not paying attention and didn't realize this was on
the users list. There has simultaneously been a thread about this on
the user list and the dev list (we were told it was appropriate for the
dev list by the way), and I didn't notice. My bad.
Frank
Craig McClanahan wrote
On 4/20/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll be doing sf.net... Once I have a complete codebase (not final, just
> more complete than what I posted previously) I'll see about getting it
> set up as a project on struts.sf.net. I think that's the right place
> for it.
>
In th
Vic Cekvenich (netsql) wrote:
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:I do think there is more
that can be done, and I still think the tags are the best way to
present it.
Maybe tags that leverage dojo.js?
Today I did some refactoring of the whole thing, and the important point
of it all is that a developer wil
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:I do think there is more
that can be done, and I still think the tags are the best way to present
it.
Maybe tags that leverage dojo.js?
Hey, if you'd like to be involved with my efforts, I could certainly use
the help in ...
Do you sf.net or wiki type resources?
.V
--
The fact that words have multiple meanings/uses does not mean the
meanings are private. If the meanings are private, they have
absolutely no use whatsoever. That is a DOH!
On 4/20/05, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's swell, from an academic point of view, but the fact is that
>
ested). This way you could even do one version that uses Dojo if
you want!
Frank
I was interested in the conversation, hope this adds some value.
Regards...djsuarez
-Original Message-
From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:49 PM
To: Struts Users Mail
ould be on the page:
http://xxx.yyy.zzz?a=b&c=d";)"/>
Same caveats as below apply...djsuarez
-Original Message-
From: David Suarez
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 3:26 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: RE: AJAX: Whoa, Nellie!
Saw th
e.
I was interested in the conversation, hope this adds some value.
Regards...djsuarez
-Original Message-
From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:49 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: AJAX: Whoa, Nellie!
Martin Cooper wrote:
> My "
Dakota Jack wrote:
According to the linguists, the "beauty" of language is just the
opposite, viz. its public nature, so that private meanings are not
only allowed, they categorically make no sense.
That's swell, from an academic point of view, but the fact is that
people mean different things wit
Good idea. There is an incipient similar thing going on with the
image package in the commons sandbox. Abey Mullasery's work there is
interesting. I think it needs a bit more practical grounding, but
that will come. These two projects do not overlap, but the point
does.
On 4/20/05, Frank W. Za
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
someone mentioned the idea of having custom tags
that generate the underlying code... this is an intersting idea to me
because you get the whole Swing-ish code-centric approach underlying it
all, but with custom tags so you don't have to do all the code if you
don't want t
You know, if what you want is Swing on the client, i.e., you write code to
do everything, then my VisML project that I mentioned yesterday is one
such option.
But you start to see in a pretty big hurry that it isn't a good idea...
One of the most powerful aspects of web development is the way you
There are lots of issues besides just wanting this to happen. All
serious attempts so far have pretty much failed. Have you looked at
Flash, if this is your big interest? Flash ActionScript pretty much
does what you want. But, I don't think it is a good idea. I think
you have to keep some thing
Erik Weber wrote:
SwingWorker worker = new CustomSwingWorker("GET_XML_RPC_DATA") {
I guess I'm in the wrong forum.
:)
Erik
Ahh it's the right forum ;-).
My code is VERY similar to above.
.V
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
On Tue, April 19, 2005 10:47 am, Erik Weber said:
I, with respect for the author, disagree with this entirely.
I am people, and this is not what I expect or desire at all. As a user,
I expect and desire 1) A fast download 2) my bookmarks to work/easy to
remember URLs 3)
The problem with NET and JSF is not what they "do" client side but
what they do server side. They are just too heavy and will never
scale. This does not mean that they will not have a market.
Hopefully they will so that those who love them will have money and
leave us alone. But, for people who
According to the linguists, the "beauty" of language is just the
opposite, viz. its public nature, so that private meanings are not
only allowed, they categorically make no sense. This has been the
rock-hard basis for modern linguistic analysis for as long as the Sun
has risen. Technical terms ca
+1 also to Frank's suggestions, although I realize he was not ready to
cash in the ticket yet. On the whole, I like his no nonsense and
non-convoluted approach to these problems. That is what I liked about
Struts from the beginning. The present course is not clear. Nor is
there any perceived ne
Martin Cooper wrote:
My "Huh?" comment was in reference you your statement that the approach I
was describing "doesn't really help people with existing apps", which I take
issue with. If you put the JavaScript methods in separate file, it has the
exact same impact on the JSP pages as your approach
Martin Cooper wrote:
That's why I said "or maybe somewhere else". It would be perfectly fine to
put the JavaScript functions in a separate .js file and ed to from the
page. And neither of us are talking scriptlets here. ;-)
Glad neither of us are talking scriplets :) Didn't think we were
anyway,
nt: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:16 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Cc: Shihgian Lee
Subject: Re: AJAX: Whoa, Nellie!
I don't think saying it is wrong is accurate... It is just an
environment you are probably not used to. Some argue it is better that
way and many say that's the way we s
You say it jokingly, but...
Vic Cekvenich (netsql) wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
"Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
Again, by all means, use Dojo. Not everyone will agree it's a good
answer though. Not everyone will see it as the greatest thing since
sliced bread.
Poor foo
Martin Cooper wrote:
"Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
Again, by all means, use Dojo. Not everyone will agree it's a good
answer though. Not everyone will see it as the greatest thing since
sliced bread.
Poor fools. ;-) ;-) ;-)
--
Martin Cooper
Headline for tmrw bloogers
ril 19, 2005 8:16 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Cc: Shihgian Lee
Subject: Re: AJAX: Whoa, Nellie!
I don't think saying it is wrong is accurate... It is just an
environment you are probably not used to. Some argue it is better that
way and many say that's the way we should be moving
Michael J. wrote:
Glorified graphics artists do not do markup, they create nice mockups
in Photoshop, which adore big bosses, who tell those unglofied ones to
implement unearthy coolness in code. And those implementing this fancy
stuff better know [at least about existence of] Javascript, XHTML,
CS
On 4/19/05, Shihgian Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What you demonstrate here I would also argue is worse for page authors,
> > who now have to be concerned with script writing as well as layout of
> > simple HTML tags. You can argue that a page author would know
> > Javascript as well, and yo
> What you demonstrate here I would also argue is worse for page authors,
> who now have to be concerned with script writing as well as layout of
> simple HTML tags. You can argue that a page author would know
> Javascript as well, and you may be right in most cases, but the idea
> that everyone s
"Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Martin Cooper wrote:
> >>>* Provide a client side JavaScript library that does the grunt work
> >>> of making the back-end XmlHttpRequest call, and updating the
> >>> corresponding portion of your DOM. Martin like
"Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Martin Cooper wrote:
> > Perhaps I'm missing the simplicity of your proposal. Let's take the
example
> > from your original RFC. Here it is, for convenience:
> >
>
> >
> > Now let's look at the equivalent if I use t
Martin Cooper wrote:
* Provide a client side JavaScript library that does the grunt work
of making the back-end XmlHttpRequest call, and updating the
corresponding portion of your DOM. Martin likes DOJO for this;
there are also a bunch of other libraries that do the same sort
of thing that sho
Martin Cooper wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing the simplicity of your proposal. Let's take the example
from your original RFC. Here it is, for convenience:
Now let's look at the equivalent if I use the existing Struts HTML tags and
Dojo.
In the JSP page:
Elsewhere in the JSP page, or maybe somewhere
"Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Tue, April 19, 2005 2:47 am, Craig McClanahan said:
> > This is exactly the area I've been having trouble with this proposal
> > as well ... tell me again why you can't use Ajax techniques with the
> > standard
Perhaps I'm missing the simplicity of your proposal. Let's take the example
from your original RFC. Here it is, for convenience:
In the JSP page:
In the Ajax config file:
button1
onClick
queryString
buttonValue=button1,textValue=text1
http://www.om
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
The problem arose, initially, because we were allowing for something like
300 records max at a time. Such a request was taking like 5 seconds on a
P3 550. As it turns out, the response from the server was sub-second
(VERY low, better than anything we see even today in cur
On Tue, April 19, 2005 2:33 pm, Vic Cekvenich (netsql) said:
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>> Not if I complete my project! ;)
>>
>
>
> I hope you do!
> See if you can put some version on struts.sf.net, this is how some
> committers got in.
That's my plan at the moment. There frankly isn't a ton lef
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Not if I complete my project! ;)
I hope you do!
See if you can put some version on struts.sf.net, this is how some
committers got in.
I am no JavaScript guru, but something similar to XUL and new W3 XForms,
were it's even possible to just send XML-RPC style XML to the s
Not if I complete my project! ;)
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
On Tue, April 19, 2005 1:37 pm, Dave Newton said:
> Dakota Jack wrote:
>
>>This may be straying a bit from the AJAX discussion?
>>
>>
> ...which is straying a bi
Dakota Jack wrote:
I may be nuts, many have said I am on this list, unfairly, but isn't
"rendering HTML" capable of being understood either as "rendering the
HTML" meaning creating the HTML or "rendering the HTML" meaning
creating the view from the HTML? At least people like David Geary
talk about
I think this AJAX discussion was about integrating AJAX and Struts.
Not complaining about your asides, Dave. Just trying to maintain some
focus. ///;-)
On 4/19/05, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dakota Jack wrote:
>
> >This may be straying a bit from the AJAX discussion?
> >
> >
> ..
Dakota Jack wrote:
This may be straying a bit from the AJAX discussion?
...which is straying a bit from Struts?
Dave
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I may be nuts, many have said I am on this list, unfairly, but isn't
"rendering HTML" capable of being understood either as "rendering the
HTML" meaning creating the HTML or "rendering the HTML" meaning
creating the view from the HTML? At least people like David Geary
talk about serverside renderi
That's actually a good point... We've all heard about JSF and ASP.Net, how
they handle client-side events server-side, which is a concept I've never
been especially enamored with. But, when you see some actual examples of
this in things like what Google is doing, you start to reconsider that
posit
Well, to the extent that AJAX techniques can make a site seem faster, it
is actually on-topic.
And I don't care if this map thing is on-topic or not, it is cool as hell :)
By the way, not sure who said it, but you can in fact scroll around this
map, just like Google Maps, by dragging. The zoom i
You got me :)
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
On Tue, April 19, 2005 1:26 pm, Dave Newton said:
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>
>>Simply put, there isn't the usual HTML rendering happening on the server
>> because the
>>HTML esse
This may be straying a bit from the AJAX discussion?
On 4/19/05, Michael J. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/19/05, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I like fast download times, but I hate the web: I want any page that's
> > more complicated than "Here, download this, you'll be be
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Simply put, there isn't the usual HTML rendering happening on the server because the
HTML essentially already exists.
Just a nitpick; there's never any HTML rendering on the server.
Generation, perhaps, but not rendering.
Dave
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
I'm interested in knowing if that's what you are actually saying because,
while I have moved away from it a bit as I've said, I still believe that
approach has significant advantages, but for a long time I thought I was
the only one that thought so! :)
I'm not Vic, but I
I have another perspective on this. Rich UIs are good, but what I
like about AJAX in addition to that somewhat peripheral concern (to
me) is that it cooperates with the serverside and allows the
serverside to be more efficient. The relationship between the server
and the client in AJAX is what is
Michael J. wrote:
Have you tried this one: http://map.search.ch/ Try to magnify ;)
Oh, that's neat. If you could drag it it'd be like a real application!
Cool!
Dave
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additio
You would, I think, love some of the apps I've put together. The problem
though, as far as other developers go, is that they really are a whole
different paradigm than what most are used to.
Ironically, the very first web app I did for my current employer some five
years ago is the best example o
On 4/19/05, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I like fast download times, but I hate the web: I want any page that's
> more complicated than "Here, download this, you'll be better off" to
> have functionality that doesn't make me wait all the time. For a server
> round-trip. Sometimes it'
Dakota Jack wrote:
I don't think he said "absolutely everyone, including specifically
Erik Weber", Erik. You turn out, in the end, to be just a person: not
people. ///;-)
Not me, though; I'm actually people.
I may be schizophrenic, but at least I have each other.
I like fast download times, b
That's an interesting comment Vic... are you saying you favor an approach
where the entire client view itself is rendered on the client?
I ask because that used to be my thinking, and I'm moved away from it to
some degree. By way of example:
* The little proof of concept thing I mentioned ealier
HUZZAH! +1 This is about AJAX, not about JavaScript. I am with those
who say that if you don't like abortion, don't have one. Also, if you
don't like JavaScript, don't use it. But, in the middle of an AJAX
discussion all this pro and con JavaScript discussion is ridiculous.
Jack
On 4/19/05, J
Michael J. wrote:
People just should stop thinking in terms of "client-side scripting"
and start thinking
in terms of "client-side rendering" :-)
(XAML, XUL, Flex, JDNC, DHTML(Ajax, JavaScript)).
UI naturaly should be done on "client" side, asking for domain and other
services from the
I don't think he said "absolutely everyone, including specifically
Erik Weber", Erik. You turn out, in the end, to be just a person: not
people. ///;-)
Jack
On 4/19/05, Erik Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>
> >On Tue, April 19, 2005 5:30 am, Jesse Alexander (
+1 Frank! Good old agility and Xtreme principles say do it and worry
about all this "wah wah wah wah" later. You have a simple and very
useful idea which is at the beginning stages but which is well-thought
out and which is based on a solid engineering foundation. Go for it
as you initially conc
We need to agree to disagree on the virtue/detriment of javascript in
web pages. Different applications for different audiences with
different purposes have different solutions.
At my company we've implemented intranet apps where the users do a
significant amount of heads-down data entry. They
> Sometimes it takes more developer effort/technology to create something
> that's easier to use. Sometimes it doesn't. But to say that
> client-side scripting is completely unnecessary for "well designed"
> application UIs is incorrect, IMO. It depends on what your users need
> to do.
People j
CTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:48 AM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: AJAX: Whoa, Nellie!
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>On Tue, April 19, 2005 5:30 am, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) said:
>
>
>>I also think that a well-designed web-UI does not need JS at all...
>&g
Hear-hear. My users would brain me if I just provided that amount of
interface on a web application.
-Original Message-
From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 April 2005 16:17
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Cc: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: AJAX: Whoa
On Tue, April 19, 2005 10:47 am, Erik Weber said:
> I, with respect for the author, disagree with this entirely.
>
> I am people, and this is not what I expect or desire at all. As a user,
> I expect and desire 1) A fast download 2) my bookmarks to work/easy to
> remember URLs 3) an organized and w
On Tue, April 19, 2005 10:46 am, Michael J. said:
> Struts-only or JSP-only solution is not good enough. The more portable
> is the better, so when I read Frank's proposal I thought, why those
> input controls are generated with custom tags? What if controls were
> created with Javascript? Custom t
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
On Tue, April 19, 2005 5:30 am, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) said:
I also think that a well-designed web-UI does not need JS at all...
Then what results is exactly what you say: a WEB UI. This was good enough
five years ago, it isn't today.
People expect, generally,
On Tue, April 19, 2005 10:37 am, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) said:
> Maybe I'm to old (in respect to IT-technology), but for me most of those
> highly sophisticated apps (be them client or web) are not very usable...
> I prefer a simple processing scheme.
No doubt there were (are still are) some ver
Since this group is more crowded, I took the liberty to crosspost a
portion of my message, that I mistakingly sent to dev group.
Struts-only or JSP-only solution is not good enough. The more portable
is the better, so when I read Frank's proposal I thought, why those
input controls are generated w
-Original Message-
> I also think that a well-designed web-UI does not need JS at all...
Then what results is exactly what you say: a WEB UI. This was good enough
five years ago, it isn't today.
People expect, generally, more robust UIs delivered in a browser. They
expect webapps that l
On Tue, April 19, 2005 5:30 am, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) said:
> I also think that a well-designed web-UI does not need JS at all...
Then what results is exactly what you say: a WEB UI. This was good enough
five years ago, it isn't today.
People expect, generally, more robust UIs delivered in a
On Tue, April 19, 2005 12:53 am, Martin Cooper said:
> To get beyond doing the grunt work yourself for Ajax, I recommend taking a
> look at this:
>
> http://dojotoolkit.org/intro_to_dojo_io.html
>
> and downloading the dojo.io package from their site.
It does look cool. However, in some ways what
On Tue, April 19, 2005 2:47 am, Craig McClanahan said:
> This is exactly the area I've been having trouble with this proposal
> as well ... tell me again why you can't use Ajax techniques with the
> standard Struts HTML tags?
No one, at least not me, has made that statement at any point. I frank
Based on my experience porting the Struts tags to AJAX/SWF
(swf.dev.java.net), I would agree with Craig that the existing Struts
tags would be sufficient; however, tweaking the event handler attrs,
as in SWF, does provide some simplification. For example (in SWF), w/
o the tweak we would nee
Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) a écrit :
Well,... If we look behind the problems that could arise with JavaScript...
I am really convinced that JS in a webapp is a really BAD idea.
Think about Cross-Scripting.
It is not that your web-applicaiton is the culprit, but someoneelse's
bad-behaving Javascript
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
On Mon, April 18, 2005 11:12 am, Emmanouil Batsis said:
I haven't really studied the samples yet, but it would seem more
semantically correct to me if the html:form was used to make this work.
I'll try to come up with more concrete suggestions.
I thought of that too
-Original Message-
Users that turn off JS are akin, in my mind, to automobile drivers who
decide they would rather play Fred Flintstone, cut holes in the
floorboards and not bother starting the engine. Oh, you'll get around,
but your missing out!
While I am certainly not trying to say the
On 4/18/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To get beyond doing the grunt work yourself for Ajax, I recommend taking a
> look at this:
>
> http://dojotoolkit.org/intro_to_dojo_io.html
>
> and downloading the dojo.io package from their site.
>
> Personally, I'm not convinced that we n
To get beyond doing the grunt work yourself for Ajax, I recommend taking a
look at this:
http://dojotoolkit.org/intro_to_dojo_io.html
and downloading the dojo.io package from their site.
Personally, I'm not convinced that we need anything new in Struts to make
using Ajax easier. I'm building pro
I should probably post this on the Wiki, but...
AJAX is just a new buzzword for an old concept: updating only portions of
a web page instead of everything at once.
Speaking for myself, I was doing what would now be called AJAX at least
five years ago, and I'm talking about in a production app. I
Ah, I see. In any case this doesn't require new tags.
Part of this is I'm not just talking about validation. In fact I think
that's about the most pedestrian use of AJAX around! It's the cooler kind
of things you can get away with like table sorting, like the example in my
article. Not that th
Oh, *that* part of it I agree has to be there or we're talking about
something completely different. It was the usage of XML that isn't
required, that was my point in writing that.
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
On Mon, Apri
I think you might be misunderstanding this point. And, I would invite
Frank, when he gets time to explain it to you.
Jack
On 4/18/05, Michael J. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From wiki:
> > No one should be under the impression that you have to deal in XML
> > or that you have to use the XMLHttpR
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
You lost me Jason... what extra tags are you referring to? My proposal
specifically didn't require any new tags, only additions to the existing
ones.
You previously said:
why not just modify the existing
Struts tags to have some at least minimal AJAX functionality? But
>From wiki:
> No one should be under the impression that you have to deal in XML
> or that you have to use the XMLHttpRequest object at all, contrary
> to the meaning of the AJAX moniker.
Not that I really care about the name, but for me you do not use Ajax
if you do not use async HTTP calls, eith
There is no problem using the name. That is the name the people at
Adaptive Path want used. It is not the name for a product. It is the
name for a technology and there is no problem with being sued. You
can just AJAX all you want. The name is clean, but not cleanser.
///;-)
Jack
On 4/18/05,
Thanks tor this note. Attribution supplied. You might have done that yourself.
On 4/18/05, Michael J. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is all great, and ajax definetely rules, but is it OK to use
> other's pictures without giving credit to their author, who by the
> way, came up with this name:
You lost me Jason... what extra tags are you referring to? My proposal
specifically didn't require any new tags, only additions to the existing
ones.
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
On Mon, April 18, 2005 2:43 pm, Jason King
> From: Günther Wieser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 8:55 PM
> To: 'Struts Users Mailing List'; 'Dakota Jack'
> Subject: RE: AJAX: Whoa, Nellie!
>
> hi,
>
> after all the mail about the philosophical aspects of AJAX (javascript
Forget whatever I was thinking, I think Jason is on the right track!
Ironically, I add custom attributes all the time in numerous situations,
but it frankly escaped me as a possible solution here.
All you really need beyond this is probably a new tag that renders a JS
function that you can pass a
nther
-Original Message-
From: Günther Wieser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 8:55 PM
To: 'Struts Users Mailing List'; 'Dakota Jack'
Subject: RE: AJAX: Whoa, Nellie!
hi,
after all the mail about the philosophical aspects of AJAX (javascrip
Yes. I agree with this wholeheartedly. I wish we would do something
similar with the application specific code that is now in Struts.
Plugins would not be the solution, but something akin to that.
On 4/18/05, Hubert Rabago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No problemo. As far as the extension itsel
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
