You raise a good point... is it possible to run both in the same
context? I can't think of any reason why not, but then that changes the
overall concept, doesn't it? If you can do that, is there any reason to
even think about supporting most SAF1 concepts? (with a few exceptions
of course, those things that everyone thinks would be nice to have in
SAF2). It isn't about a migration path then though, that's what I'm
getting at... I know there had been talk of a compatibility layer a
while ago... if that is no longer a goal, no problem here, but it would
seem to me to nullify a lot of discussion, right? :)
Frank
Ted Husted wrote:
On 6/12/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* HTML tag libraries - unless I'm mistaken, most, if not all of them,
should work if an ActionForm is emulated and placed in scope... do any
of them use anything else?
Yep. One tag or other other uses everything, and everything has to be
in the right place. The form tag access the ActionMapping to look up
the target action. The tags localize themselves from the message
resources. For client-side validation, the tags access the validators
too.
Of course, if someone wants to create a SAF1 configuration for SAF2,
that's certainly do-able. But, I'd be very (happily) urprised if the
job could be done piecemeal.
And, if we are creating a SAF1 emulator, why not just use SAF1? Let
SAF1 handles the *.dos, and let SAF2 handle the *.actions.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
AIM: fzammetti
Yahoo: fzammetti
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Java Web Parts -
http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
