You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by Massimo Lusetti <ml...@gmail.com> on 2013/02/07 09:33:39 UTC
[VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Recent discussions lead up to rise again an old issue in Tapestry list: How
the framework handle requests to non existing URL.
Now the framework simply treat them as activation context even if the pages
does not have a activation context event handler method.
Here is a request of vote to change this behavior in having the framework
return a 404 error when the pages does not have a event handler method and
the request comes with an activation context.
Our latest discussion is here for you to read:
http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/How-to-handle-404-nicely-TAP5-879-td5719588.html
Massimo Lusetti: +1 (binding)
--
Massimo
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Massimo Lusetti <ml...@gmail.com>.
Vote is canceled, I'll come up with a new vote on a new issue to try to be
more clear.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
thiagohp@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've never said we couldn't have both. In the original thread discussion I
> said we should have both. I just said that the vote shouldn't include the
> annotations, as they don't affect existing code, while Steve's proposal
> does, so I think it should be voted.
>
>
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:48:10 -0200, Taha Siddiqi <ta...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> We can have a mix of both. :)
>>
>> I use an annotation @RestrictActivationContext and it takes the number of
>> activation context parameters allowed. It also uses a worker for
>> implementation. So if we have to restrict a page to only two parameters we
>> can annotate the page with @RestrictActivationContext(2)
>>
>> I found it useful at times but if we have an application wide
>> configuration for pages where there are no activation contexts, it will be
>> useful too.
>>
>> regards
>> Taha
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:54:33 -0200, Kalle Korhonen <
>>> kalle.o.korhonen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Massimo, I encourage you take a crack at implementing speculative
>>>> support
>>>> for this as you see it. Until we have a concrete implementation, we are
>>>> talking in circles. If we voted on everything one might or might not do,
>>>> we'd never never get anywhere. As I mentioned in the other thread, I
>>>> don't think Steve Eyron's proposal is sufficient.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you're talking about the annotations, I think that's something that
>>> doesn't need a vote, as just implementing them won't change the existing
>>> behavior of Tapestry applications. On the other hand, Steve's proposal does
>>> change, so I think it needs a vote and it'll get a +1 from me.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>> ---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<de...@tapestry.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<de...@tapestry.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
Massimo
http://meridio.blogspot.com
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
I've never said we couldn't have both. In the original thread discussion I
said we should have both. I just said that the vote shouldn't include the
annotations, as they don't affect existing code, while Steve's proposal
does, so I think it should be voted.
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:48:10 -0200, Taha Siddiqi
<ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We can have a mix of both. :)
>
> I use an annotation @RestrictActivationContext and it takes the number
> of activation context parameters allowed. It also uses a worker for
> implementation. So if we have to restrict a page to only two parameters
> we can annotate the page with @RestrictActivationContext(2)
>
> I found it useful at times but if we have an application wide
> configuration for pages where there are no activation contexts, it will
> be useful too.
>
> regards
> Taha
>
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:54:33 -0200, Kalle Korhonen
>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Massimo, I encourage you take a crack at implementing speculative
>>> support
>>> for this as you see it. Until we have a concrete implementation, we are
>>> talking in circles. If we voted on everything one might or might not
>>> do,
>>> we'd never never get anywhere. As I mentioned in the other thread, I
>>> don't think Steve Eyron's proposal is sufficient.
>>
>> If you're talking about the annotations, I think that's something that
>> doesn't need a vote, as just implementing them won't change the
>> existing behavior of Tapestry applications. On the other hand, Steve's
>> proposal does change, so I think it needs a vote and it'll get a +1
>> from me.
>>
>> --
>> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Taha Siddiqi <ta...@gmail.com>.
We can have a mix of both. :)
I use an annotation @RestrictActivationContext and it takes the number of activation context parameters allowed. It also uses a worker for implementation. So if we have to restrict a page to only two parameters we can annotate the page with @RestrictActivationContext(2)
I found it useful at times but if we have an application wide configuration for pages where there are no activation contexts, it will be useful too.
regards
Taha
On Feb 8, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:54:33 -0200, Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Massimo, I encourage you take a crack at implementing speculative support
>> for this as you see it. Until we have a concrete implementation, we are
>> talking in circles. If we voted on everything one might or might not do,
>> we'd never never get anywhere. As I mentioned in the other thread, I don't think Steve Eyron's proposal is sufficient.
>
> If you're talking about the annotations, I think that's something that doesn't need a vote, as just implementing them won't change the existing behavior of Tapestry applications. On the other hand, Steve's proposal does change, so I think it needs a vote and it'll get a +1 from me.
>
> --
> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:54:33 -0200, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Massimo, I encourage you take a crack at implementing speculative support
> for this as you see it. Until we have a concrete implementation, we are
> talking in circles. If we voted on everything one might or might not do,
> we'd never never get anywhere. As I mentioned in the other thread, I
> don't think Steve Eyron's proposal is sufficient.
If you're talking about the annotations, I think that's something that
doesn't need a vote, as just implementing them won't change the existing
behavior of Tapestry applications. On the other hand, Steve's proposal
does change, so I think it needs a vote and it'll get a +1 from me.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
Massimo, I encourage you take a crack at implementing speculative support
for this as you see it. Until we have a concrete implementation, we are
talking in circles. If we voted on everything one might or might not do,
we'd never never get anywhere. As I mentioned in the other thread, I don't
think Steve Eyron's proposal is sufficient.
Kalle
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Massimo Lusetti <ml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recent discussions lead up to rise again an old issue in Tapestry list: How
> the framework handle requests to non existing URL.
>
> Now the framework simply treat them as activation context even if the pages
> does not have a activation context event handler method.
>
> Here is a request of vote to change this behavior in having the framework
> return a 404 error when the pages does not have a event handler method and
> the request comes with an activation context.
>
> Our latest discussion is here for you to read:
>
> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/How-to-handle-404-nicely-TAP5-879-td5719588.html
>
>
> Massimo Lusetti: +1 (binding)
>
> --
> Massimo
>
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 07:08:17 -0200, Massimo Lusetti <ml...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> They are discussed in the thread I've linked to.
The discussion has dozens of messages and different points of view, so
just linking to the thread is far from enough. We need to vote on
something with a technical description, as Uli said.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de>.
Also, when linking from a vote to an email thread, please use the official archives at
mail-archives.apache.org. They are guaranteed to stay, nabble is not.
Uli
On 07.02.2013 11:52, Ulrich Stärk wrote:
> The point of the vote is to document them and lay a foundation for people to decide on. There is no
> point in it when you still have to go through a 28-message thread to find out what's actually being
> proposed and voted on.
>
> Uli
>
> On 07.02.2013 10:08, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
>> They are discussed in the thread I've linked to.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Can we please document the technical changes?
>>>
>>> On 07.02.2013 09:33, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
>>>> Recent discussions lead up to rise again an old issue in Tapestry list:
>>> How
>>>> the framework handle requests to non existing URL.
>>>>
>>>> Now the framework simply treat them as activation context even if the
>>> pages
>>>> does not have a activation context event handler method.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a request of vote to change this behavior in having the framework
>>>> return a 404 error when the pages does not have a event handler method
>>> and
>>>> the request comes with an activation context.
>>>>
>>>> Our latest discussion is here for you to read:
>>>>
>>> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/How-to-handle-404-nicely-TAP5-879-td5719588.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Massimo Lusetti: +1 (binding)
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de>.
The point of the vote is to document them and lay a foundation for people to decide on. There is no
point in it when you still have to go through a 28-message thread to find out what's actually being
proposed and voted on.
Uli
On 07.02.2013 10:08, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> They are discussed in the thread I've linked to.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>
>> Can we please document the technical changes?
>>
>> On 07.02.2013 09:33, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
>>> Recent discussions lead up to rise again an old issue in Tapestry list:
>> How
>>> the framework handle requests to non existing URL.
>>>
>>> Now the framework simply treat them as activation context even if the
>> pages
>>> does not have a activation context event handler method.
>>>
>>> Here is a request of vote to change this behavior in having the framework
>>> return a 404 error when the pages does not have a event handler method
>> and
>>> the request comes with an activation context.
>>>
>>> Our latest discussion is here for you to read:
>>>
>> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/How-to-handle-404-nicely-TAP5-879-td5719588.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Massimo Lusetti: +1 (binding)
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Massimo Lusetti <ml...@gmail.com>.
They are discussed in the thread I've linked to.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
> Can we please document the technical changes?
>
> On 07.02.2013 09:33, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> > Recent discussions lead up to rise again an old issue in Tapestry list:
> How
> > the framework handle requests to non existing URL.
> >
> > Now the framework simply treat them as activation context even if the
> pages
> > does not have a activation context event handler method.
> >
> > Here is a request of vote to change this behavior in having the framework
> > return a 404 error when the pages does not have a event handler method
> and
> > the request comes with an activation context.
> >
> > Our latest discussion is here for you to read:
> >
> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/How-to-handle-404-nicely-TAP5-879-td5719588.html
> >
> >
> > Massimo Lusetti: +1 (binding)
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
Massimo
http://meridio.blogspot.com
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:14:30 -0200, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
> If that is what's going to be implemented that would suffice.
That's my humble proposal, which is basically what Steve Eyron implemented
in his project. :)
>
> Uli
>
> On 07.02.2013 12:36, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 06:58:28 -0200, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Can we please document the technical changes?
>>
>> What about this, taken from an e-mail from Steve Eyron describing his
>> solution for the problem:
>>
>> "I added a TransformWorker which checks if the page has a
>> 'model.handlesEvent(EventConstants.ACTIVATE)', if it does then I assume
>> the context is being handled
>> and I leave it alone." It's implied from the surrounding conversation
>> that when there's context and
>> the page doesn't have a method handling the 'activate' method, a 404
>> error is raised. This worker
>> would be added after the mixin one.
>>
>> This proposal is backward-compatible, doesn't break existing code, is
>> simple to document and
>> understand and simple to implement (no existing code changes except for
>> contributing the worker). It
>> doesn't cover all scenarios, but at least covers a good part of them.
>> For more specific scenarios,
>> we could define page class annotations and their workers, something I
>> think wouldn't need a vote, as
>> it doesn't change existing behaviors.
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:14:30 -0200, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
> If that is what's going to be implemented that would suffice.
That's my humble proposal, which is basically what
>
> Uli
>
> On 07.02.2013 12:36, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 06:58:28 -0200, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Can we please document the technical changes?
>>
>> What about this, taken from an e-mail from Steve Eyron describing his
>> solution for the problem:
>>
>> "I added a TransformWorker which checks if the page has a
>> 'model.handlesEvent(EventConstants.ACTIVATE)', if it does then I assume
>> the context is being handled
>> and I leave it alone." It's implied from the surrounding conversation
>> that when there's context and
>> the page doesn't have a method handling the 'activate' method, a 404
>> error is raised. This worker
>> would be added after the mixin one.
>>
>> This proposal is backward-compatible, doesn't break existing code, is
>> simple to document and
>> understand and simple to implement (no existing code changes except for
>> contributing the worker). It
>> doesn't cover all scenarios, but at least covers a good part of them.
>> For more specific scenarios,
>> we could define page class annotations and their workers, something I
>> think wouldn't need a vote, as
>> it doesn't change existing behaviors.
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de>.
If that is what's going to be implemented that would suffice.
Uli
On 07.02.2013 12:36, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 06:58:28 -0200, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
>
>> Can we please document the technical changes?
>
> What about this, taken from an e-mail from Steve Eyron describing his solution for the problem:
>
> "I added a TransformWorker which checks if the page has a
> 'model.handlesEvent(EventConstants.ACTIVATE)', if it does then I assume the context is being handled
> and I leave it alone." It's implied from the surrounding conversation that when there's context and
> the page doesn't have a method handling the 'activate' method, a 404 error is raised. This worker
> would be added after the mixin one.
>
> This proposal is backward-compatible, doesn't break existing code, is simple to document and
> understand and simple to implement (no existing code changes except for contributing the worker). It
> doesn't cover all scenarios, but at least covers a good part of them. For more specific scenarios,
> we could define page class annotations and their workers, something I think wouldn't need a vote, as
> it doesn't change existing behaviors.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 06:58:28 -0200, Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de> wrote:
> Can we please document the technical changes?
What about this, taken from an e-mail from Steve Eyron describing his
solution for the problem:
"I added a TransformWorker which checks if the page has a
'model.handlesEvent(EventConstants.ACTIVATE)', if it does then I assume
the context is being handled and I leave it alone." It's implied from the
surrounding conversation that when there's context and the page doesn't
have a method handling the 'activate' method, a 404 error is raised. This
worker would be added after the mixin one.
This proposal is backward-compatible, doesn't break existing code, is
simple to document and understand and simple to implement (no existing
code changes except for contributing the worker). It doesn't cover all
scenarios, but at least covers a good part of them. For more specific
scenarios, we could define page class annotations and their workers,
something I think wouldn't need a vote, as it doesn't change existing
behaviors.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Proposal change in behavior on how we handle activation
context (HTTP 404 error)
Posted by Ulrich Stärk <ul...@spielviel.de>.
Can we please document the technical changes?
On 07.02.2013 09:33, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> Recent discussions lead up to rise again an old issue in Tapestry list: How
> the framework handle requests to non existing URL.
>
> Now the framework simply treat them as activation context even if the pages
> does not have a activation context event handler method.
>
> Here is a request of vote to change this behavior in having the framework
> return a 404 error when the pages does not have a event handler method and
> the request comes with an activation context.
>
> Our latest discussion is here for you to read:
> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/How-to-handle-404-nicely-TAP5-879-td5719588.html
>
>
> Massimo Lusetti: +1 (binding)
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org