My mantra is "open source is selfish" - so plan yes, but somebody needs to
"to scratch that itch" himself before anything happens. For several months,
I've been just a happy user of Trails myself and BeanForm has some answers
for a component approach, so I guess the need for changes hasn't become
That was my idea and I haven't really seen any development going on
with Trails. I haven't spoken to Chris Nelson in a while (we live in
the same city), so he may be really busy with work or something.
On 1/15/07, D&J Gredler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are there still plans to modularize Trails
Are there still plans to modularize Trails a bit more so that developers who
don't have a "Trails application" can still use some of the components it
provides? I remember reading somewhere that this sort of component library
approach was being considered, but never saw it come to fruition.
On 1/
I know.. .and sorry, should have been more clear. I've played with 4.1.1,
but decided to wait for 4.1.2 release before I'd even try to do any
integration with Trails. Also I was hoping for a Tacos-like async tree
implementation that would work with 4.1.2.
Kalle
On 1/14/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL
Did you say you were waiting for a 4.1 release? Both 4.1 and 4.1.1
have officially been released already:
http://tapestry.apache.org/download.html
On 1/14/07, Kalle Korhonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And hopefully nobody's re-inventing the wheel here because Trails has a
pretty extensive suppo
And hopefully nobody's re-inventing the wheel here because Trails has a
pretty extensive support even for the not-so-simple cases. I know Howard
that you and Chris Nelson have talked a bit, so I hope you take a look at
the existing Trails code and steal/borrow from it or ask for changes before
you
BeanForm exists for Tapestry 4, and Tapestry 5 will have some kind of
similar support. I've been laying the groundwork for quite a while.
On 1/14/07, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you mean like http://beanform.sourceforge.net/ ?
On 1/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Do you mean like http://beanform.sourceforge.net/ ?
On 1/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about adding "native" Tapestry support for editing (complex)
objects?
For objects thats don't depend on other objects it would be easy (e.g.
simply generating text fields).
For obj
What about adding "native" Tapestry support for editing (complex)
objects?
For objects thats don't depend on other objects it would be easy (e.g.
simply generating text fields).
For objects that depend on other objects, it could maybe be solved using
Annotations?
E.g. One object is Car and one
