On 1/7/06, Daniel Blumenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I noticed that I haven't used any
> ActionForms (yet). Everything is being communicated via AJAX, and I just
> haven't needed any.
ActionForms and Ajax are not related. By the way, may I assume that
your app does not work with Javascript t
Frank,
> Interesting... there is of course no reason you can't use
> ActionForms with AJAX, was it a conscious decision that you
> didn't need them? How
> are you getting around not using them? Your Actions pull parameters
> directly from request I assume?
Right. My struts-config.xml file
Daniel Blumenthal wrote:
I hadn't really thought about it, but looking at the code which has already
been written for "version 2" of my site, I noticed that I haven't used any
ActionForms (yet). Everything is being communicated via AJAX, and I just
haven't needed any. So it's interesting to hea
I just wanted to say, this has been a great thread, and given me a lot of
food for thought. As I mentioned previously, I've spent a lot of time with
my head down developing in Struts 1.1, and now that I'm refactoring my site,
it's good to hear people batting around different ideas about the differ
Again, it was not a challenge. Thanks for explaining.
On 1/6/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Its a valid point - I did vote for WebWork without much knowledge and
> anyone
> crticising my decision to do that probably has good grounds to do so. For
> the record the following was
Its a valid point - I did vote for WebWork without much knowledge and anyone
crticising my decision to do that probably has good grounds to do so. For
the record the following was my response on the PMC list to the proposal to
merge with WebWork.
quote
"I like this idea and prefer it to
I am confused (there's an opening for those that like them): did you not
vote for WebWorks, Niall? If so, how could it be that this education is
happening now? That's not a challenge so please don't take it as one, but a
curious question as to what is going on.
On 1/6/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMA
- Original Message -
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:17 PM
> On Fri, January 6, 2006 4:09 pm, Niall Pemberton said:
> > Excellent. I can't decide if its a really well written book or that it
> > seemed so familiar that it just felt like bein
On 1/6/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snip*
> I'm not able to use 1.3 yet based on some politics here, so I've had to
> stick with 1.2.7.
Luxury! I'm still out here "allowed" to use 1.1. So, you folks just
feel free to change anything you like, it isn't going to make *any*
diffe
On Fri, January 6, 2006 4:01 pm, Craig McClanahan said:
> Or, the per-request POJO *is* the context object (which already has
> per-request lifetime). Why have two beans instead of one?
I agree, and that is in effect what I've been doing...
I'm not able to use 1.3 yet based on some politics here
LOL Okay, Big Fella, stand at ease. If what you said does not suggest what
I said, then you are safe as barrel water.
Let me state it for myself. It is clearly POOR and has been for a long
time. If people are too danged sensitive to accept that, sobeit. Yesterday
is gone. I am not writing hi
On Fri, January 6, 2006 4:09 pm, Niall Pemberton said:
> Excellent. I can't decide if its a really well written book or that it
> seemed so familiar that it just felt like being at home - only better!
That's what struck me too... I have to admit my feeling so far has been
"ok, this doesn't seem al
Well, however, isn't it true that the common variety was created for this.
This reminds me of the librarian who said she could not remain open an extra
five minutes for me because of the rules. Upon examination, she authored
and enforced the rules.
On 1/6/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 20:49 +, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:21 PM
>
> > Not at all a significant enhancement, but
> > think of all the things you could then do. How about a simple fla
- Original Message -
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:56 PM
>
> I'm on chapter 4 :)
>
> Frank
Excellent. I can't decide if its a really well written book or that it
seemed so familiar that it just felt like being at home - only better! Most
On 1/6/06, Hubert Rabago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/6/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > IIRC, Craig implements Commands the way he did Actions, so there's one
> > > instance of it for the whole app (per jvm, etc, you know what i mean).
> >
> >
> > That's what the defaul
On 1/6/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IIRC, Craig implements Commands the way he did Actions, so there's one
> > instance of it for the whole app (per jvm, etc, you know what i mean).
>
>
> That's what the default Commons Chain imlementation does, so that's what the
> current 1
On Fri, January 6, 2006 3:49 pm, Niall Pemberton said:
> This will be easier to do in Struts 1.3 because rather than having to have
> a
> custom RequestProcessor you simply need to replace the Command that gets
> the
> Action instance with your own version that instantiates a new Action every
> tim
On 1/6/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This will be easier to do in Struts 1.3 because rather than having to have a
> custom RequestProcessor you simply need to replace the Command that gets the
> Action instance with your own version that instantiates a new Action every
> time. So
On 1/6/06, Hubert Rabago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/6/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...all of which raises a question that I don't know the answer to...
> does
> > Struts 1.3 pool Commands? I.e., if I implement my Actions as Commands,
> do
> > I get that per-request
On Fri, January 6, 2006 3:36 pm, Hubert Rabago said:
> IIRC, Craig implements Commands the way he did Actions, so there's one
> instance of it for the whole app (per jvm, etc, you know what i mean).
That would be a shame. Craig, can you confirm this? If that is the case,
I'd be interested in kno
- Original Message -
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:21 PM
> The interesting thing is, there are some relatively minor tweaks that
> could be done to Struts that would solve a lot of problems. How about
> creating Actions per-request?
This
On 1/6/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The interesting thing is, there are some relatively minor tweaks that
> could be done to Struts that would solve a lot of problems. How about
> creating Actions per-request? Not at all a significant enhancement, but
> think of all the thin
On Fri, January 6, 2006 2:59 pm, Dakota Jack said:
> Heh, Frank,
>
> The major problem with action forms is that there is an assumption that an
> action must be sandwiched between two instances of the same action form
> response object. This is simply contrary to what anyone would logically
> expe
Heh, Frank,
The major problem with action forms is that there is an assumption that an
action must be sandwiched between two instances of the same action form
response object. This is simply contrary to what anyone would logically
expect of a normal transversal by a client through a site. An act
On Fri, January 6, 2006 2:01 pm, Michael Jouravlev said:
> The above was not meant to be an attack on you (do you have
> suggest-type thing?) ;-)) Google has also bandwidth and number of
> connections to spare ;-)
Oh, I know, I was just pointing it out because many people don't realize
they do tha
On 1/6/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, January 6, 2006 1:01 pm, Michael Jouravlev said:
> > Rrright. You want to save on network bandwidth by validating in
> > browser. At the same time we have Ajax "suggest"-type junk growing in
> > popularity, where server is pulled eac
On Fri, January 6, 2006 1:01 pm, Michael Jouravlev said:
> Rrright. You want to save on network bandwidth by validating in
> browser. At the same time we have Ajax "suggest"-type junk growing in
> popularity, where server is pulled each time a user hits a button.
Well, not *each* time a key is pre
On 1/6/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/6/06, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I expect I'm just groggy, but why does the presentation side need to
> > know about model/persistence stuff?
>
> Client side validation.
You also need to know the model data type for convers
On 1/6/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/6/06, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Doesn't it just need validation info rather than model knowledge (you
> > listed validation constraints/msgs in your original list, which is why I
> > can't figure out why it needs any more info
On 1/6/06, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doesn't it just need validation info rather than model knowledge (you
> listed validation constraints/msgs in your original list, which is why I
> can't figure out why it needs any more info).
If we consider the target type to be a validation con
Dave Newton wrote the following on 1/6/2006 9:35 AM:
Doesn't it just need validation info rather than model knowledge (you
listed validation constraints/msgs in your original list, which is why I
can't figure out why it needs any more info).
Not necessarily related to the model per-se but I
Ted Husted wrote:
On 1/6/06, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I expect I'm just groggy, but why does the presentation side need to
know about model/persistence stuff?
Client side validation.
Doesn't it just need validation info rather than model knowledge (you
listed validati
On 1/6/06, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I expect I'm just groggy, but why does the presentation side need to
> know about model/persistence stuff?
Client side validation.
> One of my primary concerns is that I want as much of the application as
> "reasonable" to be accessible to the
On 1/6/06, Tamas Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/6/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/5/06, Tamas Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm actually quite happy with what Struts has to offer except for the
> > > > deal with having to use ActionForms. I'
Ted Husted wrote:
The big picture is that the presentation layer, whether it's a web
layer or not, needs to know a lot about every property that is exposed
by the application. We need to know the property's
* view name
* view type (String or boolean)
* validation constraints
* default control t
On 1/6/06, Tamas Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So why is it better to bind request params to business layer objects
> directly without using ActionForms?
It isn't, really. People do that, but when we do, we flirt with the
dark side. The problem with ActionForms, and similar strategies, is
th
On 1/6/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/5/06, Tamas Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm actually quite happy with what Struts has to offer except for the
> > > deal with having to use ActionForms. I'd really like a Struts-like
> > > framework but allows me to u
On 1/5/06, Tamas Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm actually quite happy with what Struts has to offer except for the
> > deal with having to use ActionForms. I'd really like a Struts-like
> > framework but allows me to use POJOs to capture my data and provides a
> > nice way to redisplay
On 1/6/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/5/06, Tamas Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm actually quite happy with what Struts has to offer except for the
> > > deal with having to use ActionForms. I'd really like a Struts-like
> > > framework but allows me t
On 1/5/06, Tamas Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm actually quite happy with what Struts has to offer except for the
> > deal with having to use ActionForms. I'd really like a Struts-like
> > framework but allows me to use POJOs to capture my data and provides a
> > nice way to redispl
>
> I'm actually quite happy with what Struts has to offer except for the
> deal with having to use ActionForms. I'd really like a Struts-like
> framework but allows me to use POJOs to capture my data and provides a
> nice way to redisplay that data back to the user if validation fails (ie
> a POJO
At 9:39 AM -0500 1/5/06, Rick Reumann wrote:
Craig McClanahan wrote the following on 1/4/2006 4:24 PM:
On 1/4/06, Rick Reumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since I've been working on a rich client .NET app for a while, I've been
a bit out of the loop on all the latest 'goings on' in regard to
fra
Craig McClanahan wrote the following on 1/4/2006 4:24 PM:
On 1/4/06, Rick Reumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since I've been working on a rich client .NET app for a while, I've been
a bit out of the loop on all the latest 'goings on' in regard to
frameworks. (I couldn't keep up with all the Stru
On 1/4/06, Rick Reumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since I've been working on a rich client .NET app for a while, I've been
> a bit out of the loop on all the latest 'goings on' in regard to
> frameworks. (I couldn't keep up with all the Struts/JSF/Shale/WebWork
> comments on the list a while a
Since I've been working on a rich client .NET app for a while, I've been
a bit out of the loop on all the latest 'goings on' in regard to
frameworks. (I couldn't keep up with all the Struts/JSF/Shale/WebWork
comments on the list a while a back.)
I'm actually quite happy with what Struts has to
46 matches
Mail list logo
