You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com> on 2008/04/02 08:18:03 UTC
Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
[I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail servers are saying my
last 3 attempts to send this via my normal mailbox are spam :(]
All,
I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which uses Dojo 1.1
instead of 0.4.3.
The two main changes that were necessary were;
* baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes in dojo API
* parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests (after they've
been modified due to the changes above), so I would appreciate anyone else's
help in either checking this into subversion so can start to be official, or
grab it, thrash it, and discuss problems here so we can get it into a state
fit for S2.1
If you want to download the source with svn directories you can from
http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
Thanks,
Al.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework-tp16442992p16442992.html
Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
Dave,
I don't think anyone does have a good handle on how much work it would be to
integrate Dojo 1.0 into the S2.1 tag framework. It's one of those things
that the time taken to properly evaluate and estimate the work necessary may
be longer than the time to do the work, and even when the work is under way
there may be some unforeseen issues even if an estimate was made. The Dojo
guys have tried to make it easier by providing an api change list from 0.4
to 0.9 then from 0.9 to 1.0, but how that applies to the S2.1 code is
something that will only make sense to someone who has the code fresh in
their mind.
This is why I started to work on the changes and kept the code as a separate
entity, that way if it does prove to be a mountain rather than a molehill
there's nothing being held up, and if it turns out to be a molehill then we
get all the benefits of supporting, matured code with a smaller footprint in
a short period of time.
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Newton" <ne...@yahoo.com>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
> --- Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com> wrote:
>> My main driver for doing the updates was to update the S2.1 code to bring
>> it inline with the latest version, but perhaps we should put our hands up
> and
>> admit that S2's focus is not on Ajax UI widgets
>
> Nobody has yet provided any information as to the potential cost of making
> Dojo 1.0 work and nobody answered my question regarding what level of
> functionality currently exists in the Dojo 1.0 plugin, so I'm pretty much
> unable to come to any cogent conclusion.
>
> If it came to a vote I'd probably say (a) leave the current Dojo plugin
> where
> it is, and (b) put any new tag plugins on Google Code (like my
> semi-dormant
> jQuery plugin and others people are working on).
>
> I don't know what the ASF policy is on "endorsing" particular code, but it
> seems like if a new plugin got to the point of being usable it would be
> simple enough to add a "we currently recommend using..." or "among the
> better
> tag libraries are..." or whatever.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>.
--- Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com> wrote:
> My main driver for doing the updates was to update the S2.1 code to bring
> it inline with the latest version, but perhaps we should put our hands up
and
> admit that S2's focus is not on Ajax UI widgets
Nobody has yet provided any information as to the potential cost of making
Dojo 1.0 work and nobody answered my question regarding what level of
functionality currently exists in the Dojo 1.0 plugin, so I'm pretty much
unable to come to any cogent conclusion.
If it came to a vote I'd probably say (a) leave the current Dojo plugin where
it is, and (b) put any new tag plugins on Google Code (like my semi-dormant
jQuery plugin and others people are working on).
I don't know what the ASF policy is on "endorsing" particular code, but it
seems like if a new plugin got to the point of being usable it would be
simple enough to add a "we currently recommend using..." or "among the better
tag libraries are..." or whatever.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
Given the discussion, how about the following idea;
- Remove the dojo plug-in from the S2 codebase and put it, in it's current
state, into a googlecode project.
My main driver for doing the updates was to update the S2.1 code to bring it
inline with the latest version, but perhaps we should put our hands up and
admit that S2's focus is not on Ajax UI widgets and recommend that web
developers go out and use whichever framework they want as opposed to
limiting them to the choice made by the tag developers. After all, there is
little in the way of S2.1 code for ajax, all we have is some code that acts
as a wrapper to make dojo look like it's part of S2.
We can put in the readme a pointer to the googlecode project, and see how it
develops from there.
What do people think?
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Cooper" <ma...@apache.org>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Jeromy Evans <
> jeromy.evans@blueskyminds.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Agreed. The Dojo 0.43 plugin in Struts2.1.1 contains significant
>> improvements over the Dojo 0.40 tags bundled in 2.0.x. It's worth
>> releasing
>> as-is and I'd give it a +1 today.
>>
>> It sounds like there's enough people interested to complete a Dojo 1.x
>> plugin. I also think it's worth creating a googlecode project for it
>> until
>> it reaches a certain level of maturity. The benefit of googlecode over
>> the
>> sandpit is the low barrier to contribute and informal releases.
>
>
> If you start the project at Google Code, remember that you will have to
> come
> through the Incubator, one way or another, to get the code back into
> Struts,
> even if that's just the IP Clearance route. And if, by "low barrier to
> contribute", you mean that you want to grant committership to people who
> are
> not Struts committers, then remember that either those people will lose
> commit rights when you bring the code back here, or you will have to go
> through a different incubation process to deal with the additional
> committers.
>
> On the other hand, creating the project in the Struts sandbox means that
> it
> is immediately open to any Struts committer, all of the resources are
> already set up, and getting a release out is dependent only upon a vote to
> move the code from the sandbox to the main code line. I'd say that path
> will
> be a whole lot less hassle - unless, that is, you expect the Dojo 1.x
> plugin
> to be a major project that requires additional committers and spans an
> extended period of time to get into shape equivalent to that of today's
> Dojo
> plugin.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
>
>>
>> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think we should wait at all. Refactoring dojo out of core was
>> > one of the main things for 2.1 and it's been there for a year already.
>> > Unless Dojo 1.0 is a lot, way, way better than the older versions, I
>> > would say you will find lots of surprises. IMO you should set it up as
>> > a project on googlecode or somewhere else and we can all
>> > contribute/test and eventually bring it on (or just keep it there and
>> > get rid of our current plugin).
>> >
>> > my 2 centavos :)
>> >
>> > musachy
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > --- Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com> wrote:
>> > > > Whilst I can see that there is an advantage to getting a 2.1
>> > > release out,
>> > > > my question would be do we want it to go out with a (very) old
>> > > version
>> > > > of dojo as the demonstration of it's modern ajax capabilities?,
>> > > and
>> > > do
>> > > > we want to put developers through getting used to 0.4 as the
>> > > bundled
>> > > > version and then jump to a much newer version as a minor version
>> > > release?
>> > >
>> > > So the questions are how well tested are the new Dojo tags, and if
>> > > they're
>> > > not tested well enough how long would it take to test them? Lastly,
>> > > how much
>> > > rework, if any, is required to match the functionality of the 0.4x
>> > > plugin?
>> > >
>> > > My impression is still that Dojo 1.0 is pretty different from Dojo
>> > > 0.4x, and
>> > > that this is a non-trivial project--but that's a guess made from
>> > > ignorance.
>> > > Is there any evidence to the contrary? Have the tags been tested
>> > > (even
>> > > manually) on the client side to bulk-verify behavior?
>> > >
>> > > Due to some immediate responsibilities, my availability for working
>> > > on a Dojo
>> > > 1.0 plugin is limited and conditional:
>> > >
>> > > -- I have some time I can dedicate to *testing* new Dojo tags.
>> > > -- I don't have the time to learn Dojo 1.0 well and implement much
>> > > changed
>> > > and/or new functionality if both the cost and risk are high.
>> > > -- The window within that time is available is short, and dwindling.
>> > > -- The more people working on it the more likely I am to make the
>> > > time
>> > > because of a perceived lower risk.
>> > >
>> > > Nutshell: what's anybody's take on the effort this would require,
>> > > and
>> > > who's
>> > > available to make that effort?
>> > >
>> > > Dave
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Jeromy Evans <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>.
Martin Cooper wrote:
>
>
> On the other hand, creating the project in the Struts sandbox means that it
> is immediately open to any Struts committer, all of the resources are
> already set up, and getting a release out is dependent only upon a vote to
> move the code from the sandbox to the main code line. I'd say that path will
> be a whole lot less hassle - unless, that is, you expect the Dojo 1.x plugin
> to be a major project that requires additional committers and spans an
> extended period of time to get into shape equivalent to that of today's Dojo
> plugin.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
>
>
I agree transition from googlecode back into Apache is an important
consideration and a googlecode decision should be made only after we
understand the level of effort involved.
My gut feeling is that a complete Dojo 1.x plugin requires significant
effort and additional committers. Others would know better than me
though. Do you have a contact over at the Dojo that :
- is familiar with the current Struts Dojo capabilities and can give
an indication of the effort to migrate to 1.x; or
- more importantly, confirm whether recreating custom tags is a
sensible approach at all.
It may be better for both projects that we make a concerted effort to
demonstrate dojo + struts integration rather than creating another
plugin that encapsulates Dojo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Jeromy Evans <
jeromy.evans@blueskyminds.com.au> wrote:
> Agreed. The Dojo 0.43 plugin in Struts2.1.1 contains significant
> improvements over the Dojo 0.40 tags bundled in 2.0.x. It's worth releasing
> as-is and I'd give it a +1 today.
>
> It sounds like there's enough people interested to complete a Dojo 1.x
> plugin. I also think it's worth creating a googlecode project for it until
> it reaches a certain level of maturity. The benefit of googlecode over the
> sandpit is the low barrier to contribute and informal releases.
If you start the project at Google Code, remember that you will have to come
through the Incubator, one way or another, to get the code back into Struts,
even if that's just the IP Clearance route. And if, by "low barrier to
contribute", you mean that you want to grant committership to people who are
not Struts committers, then remember that either those people will lose
commit rights when you bring the code back here, or you will have to go
through a different incubation process to deal with the additional
committers.
On the other hand, creating the project in the Struts sandbox means that it
is immediately open to any Struts committer, all of the resources are
already set up, and getting a release out is dependent only upon a vote to
move the code from the sandbox to the main code line. I'd say that path will
be a whole lot less hassle - unless, that is, you expect the Dojo 1.x plugin
to be a major project that requires additional committers and spans an
extended period of time to get into shape equivalent to that of today's Dojo
plugin.
--
Martin Cooper
>
> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>
> > I don't think we should wait at all. Refactoring dojo out of core was
> > one of the main things for 2.1 and it's been there for a year already.
> > Unless Dojo 1.0 is a lot, way, way better than the older versions, I
> > would say you will find lots of surprises. IMO you should set it up as
> > a project on googlecode or somewhere else and we can all
> > contribute/test and eventually bring it on (or just keep it there and
> > get rid of our current plugin).
> >
> > my 2 centavos :)
> >
> > musachy
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > --- Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com> wrote:
> > > > Whilst I can see that there is an advantage to getting a 2.1
> > > release out,
> > > > my question would be do we want it to go out with a (very) old
> > > version
> > > > of dojo as the demonstration of it's modern ajax capabilities?, and
> > > do
> > > > we want to put developers through getting used to 0.4 as the
> > > bundled
> > > > version and then jump to a much newer version as a minor version
> > > release?
> > >
> > > So the questions are how well tested are the new Dojo tags, and if
> > > they're
> > > not tested well enough how long would it take to test them? Lastly,
> > > how much
> > > rework, if any, is required to match the functionality of the 0.4x
> > > plugin?
> > >
> > > My impression is still that Dojo 1.0 is pretty different from Dojo
> > > 0.4x, and
> > > that this is a non-trivial project--but that's a guess made from
> > > ignorance.
> > > Is there any evidence to the contrary? Have the tags been tested
> > > (even
> > > manually) on the client side to bulk-verify behavior?
> > >
> > > Due to some immediate responsibilities, my availability for working
> > > on a Dojo
> > > 1.0 plugin is limited and conditional:
> > >
> > > -- I have some time I can dedicate to *testing* new Dojo tags.
> > > -- I don't have the time to learn Dojo 1.0 well and implement much
> > > changed
> > > and/or new functionality if both the cost and risk are high.
> > > -- The window within that time is available is short, and dwindling.
> > > -- The more people working on it the more likely I am to make the
> > > time
> > > because of a perceived lower risk.
> > >
> > > Nutshell: what's anybody's take on the effort this would require, and
> > > who's
> > > available to make that effort?
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Jeromy Evans <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>.
Agreed. The Dojo 0.43 plugin in Struts2.1.1 contains significant
improvements over the Dojo 0.40 tags bundled in 2.0.x. It's worth
releasing as-is and I'd give it a +1 today.
It sounds like there's enough people interested to complete a Dojo 1.x
plugin. I also think it's worth creating a googlecode project for it
until it reaches a certain level of maturity. The benefit of googlecode
over the sandpit is the low barrier to contribute and informal releases.
Musachy Barroso wrote:
> I don't think we should wait at all. Refactoring dojo out of core was
> one of the main things for 2.1 and it's been there for a year already.
> Unless Dojo 1.0 is a lot, way, way better than the older versions, I
> would say you will find lots of surprises. IMO you should set it up as
> a project on googlecode or somewhere else and we can all
> contribute/test and eventually bring it on (or just keep it there and
> get rid of our current plugin).
>
> my 2 centavos :)
>
> musachy
>
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> --- Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com> wrote:
>> > Whilst I can see that there is an advantage to getting a 2.1 release out,
>> > my question would be do we want it to go out with a (very) old version
>> > of dojo as the demonstration of it's modern ajax capabilities?, and do
>> > we want to put developers through getting used to 0.4 as the bundled
>> > version and then jump to a much newer version as a minor version release?
>>
>> So the questions are how well tested are the new Dojo tags, and if they're
>> not tested well enough how long would it take to test them? Lastly, how much
>> rework, if any, is required to match the functionality of the 0.4x plugin?
>>
>> My impression is still that Dojo 1.0 is pretty different from Dojo 0.4x, and
>> that this is a non-trivial project--but that's a guess made from ignorance.
>> Is there any evidence to the contrary? Have the tags been tested (even
>> manually) on the client side to bulk-verify behavior?
>>
>> Due to some immediate responsibilities, my availability for working on a Dojo
>> 1.0 plugin is limited and conditional:
>>
>> -- I have some time I can dedicate to *testing* new Dojo tags.
>> -- I don't have the time to learn Dojo 1.0 well and implement much changed
>> and/or new functionality if both the cost and risk are high.
>> -- The window within that time is available is short, and dwindling.
>> -- The more people working on it the more likely I am to make the time
>> because of a perceived lower risk.
>>
>> Nutshell: what's anybody's take on the effort this would require, and who's
>> available to make that effort?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Musachy Barroso <mu...@gmail.com>.
I don't think we should wait at all. Refactoring dojo out of core was
one of the main things for 2.1 and it's been there for a year already.
Unless Dojo 1.0 is a lot, way, way better than the older versions, I
would say you will find lots of surprises. IMO you should set it up as
a project on googlecode or somewhere else and we can all
contribute/test and eventually bring it on (or just keep it there and
get rid of our current plugin).
my 2 centavos :)
musachy
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com> wrote:
> > Whilst I can see that there is an advantage to getting a 2.1 release out,
> > my question would be do we want it to go out with a (very) old version
> > of dojo as the demonstration of it's modern ajax capabilities?, and do
> > we want to put developers through getting used to 0.4 as the bundled
> > version and then jump to a much newer version as a minor version release?
>
> So the questions are how well tested are the new Dojo tags, and if they're
> not tested well enough how long would it take to test them? Lastly, how much
> rework, if any, is required to match the functionality of the 0.4x plugin?
>
> My impression is still that Dojo 1.0 is pretty different from Dojo 0.4x, and
> that this is a non-trivial project--but that's a guess made from ignorance.
> Is there any evidence to the contrary? Have the tags been tested (even
> manually) on the client side to bulk-verify behavior?
>
> Due to some immediate responsibilities, my availability for working on a Dojo
> 1.0 plugin is limited and conditional:
>
> -- I have some time I can dedicate to *testing* new Dojo tags.
> -- I don't have the time to learn Dojo 1.0 well and implement much changed
> and/or new functionality if both the cost and risk are high.
> -- The window within that time is available is short, and dwindling.
> -- The more people working on it the more likely I am to make the time
> because of a perceived lower risk.
>
> Nutshell: what's anybody's take on the effort this would require, and who's
> available to make that effort?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
RE: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by "Karr, David" <da...@wamu.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeromy Evans [mailto:jeromy.evans@blueskyminds.com.au]
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 5:56 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>
>
> I've concluded that tag libraries for rich client framework
> like these no longer warrant the effort. I prefer to
> encourage users to use the client-side libraries as intended
> by their designers, whether that's with HTML markup or
> programmatic javascript. This approach benefits the users as
> they can receive support directly from Dojo or other vendor,
> can develop skills that can be transferred between
> server-side frameworks and they have no artificial
> constraints placed on them by a tag library. Struts2's role
> should be to simplify server-side integration, such as by
> providing default models that can be used by the Dojo
> widgets. And provide really good examples.
I also feel strongly that this direction holds the best long-term value.
However, I don't believe that Dojo and YUI and others like it should
just be ignored by Struts2 and others like it. In fact, the server-side
frameworks should embrace and facilitate the combination, either with
light integration interfaces, or simply with good documentation and
examples that describes how to combine them effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Jeromy Evans <je...@blueskyminds.com.au>.
Dave Newton wrote:
>
> Nutshell: what's anybody's take on the effort this would require, and who's
> available to make that effort?
>
>
I share similar sentiment and at most will just be able to convert my
existing 2.1.1 test applications over to use the Dojo 1.x plugin to
investigate the consequences.
I've concluded that tag libraries for rich client framework like these
no longer warrant the effort. I prefer to encourage users to use the
client-side libraries as intended by their designers, whether that's
with HTML markup or programmatic javascript. This approach benefits the
users as they can receive support directly from Dojo or other vendor,
can develop skills that can be transferred between server-side
frameworks and they have no artificial constraints placed on them by a
tag library. Struts2's role should be to simplify server-side
integration, such as by providing default models that can be used by the
Dojo widgets. And provide really good examples.
On a related issue, improving support for JSF components may allow user
to leverage existing tag libraries instead of re-inventing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>.
--- Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com> wrote:
> Whilst I can see that there is an advantage to getting a 2.1 release out,
> my question would be do we want it to go out with a (very) old version
> of dojo as the demonstration of it's modern ajax capabilities?, and do
> we want to put developers through getting used to 0.4 as the bundled
> version and then jump to a much newer version as a minor version release?
So the questions are how well tested are the new Dojo tags, and if they're
not tested well enough how long would it take to test them? Lastly, how much
rework, if any, is required to match the functionality of the 0.4x plugin?
My impression is still that Dojo 1.0 is pretty different from Dojo 0.4x, and
that this is a non-trivial project--but that's a guess made from ignorance.
Is there any evidence to the contrary? Have the tags been tested (even
manually) on the client side to bulk-verify behavior?
Due to some immediate responsibilities, my availability for working on a Dojo
1.0 plugin is limited and conditional:
-- I have some time I can dedicate to *testing* new Dojo tags.
-- I don't have the time to learn Dojo 1.0 well and implement much changed
and/or new functionality if both the cost and risk are high.
-- The window within that time is available is short, and dwindling.
-- The more people working on it the more likely I am to make the time
because of a perceived lower risk.
Nutshell: what's anybody's take on the effort this would require, and who's
available to make that effort?
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
I'm split on this.
Whilst I can see that there is an advantage to getting a 2.1 release out, my
question would be do we want it to go out with a (very) old version of dojo
as the demonstration of it's modern ajax capabilities?, and do we want to
put developers through getting used to 0.4 as the bundled version and then
jump to a much newer version as a minor version release?
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rainer Hermanns" <he...@aixcept.de>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
> Hi,
>
> I'd propose to get out 2.1.1 test build asap and integrate the latest dojo
> stuff into 2.1.2-dev as well as the other updated plugins.
> I'd volunteer for this unless Musachy has time to do so.
>
> So we can test all other features and enhancements we integrated in the
> past months and can continue with the development of S2.1.x.
>
> What do you think?
>
> cheers,
> Rainer
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Al Sutton [mailto:al.sutton@alsutton.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 12:44 AM
>>> To: Struts Developers List
>>> Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>>>
>>> All of the bits are left in place so that the source can be
>>> re-integrated as easily as possible when appropriate.
>>>
>>> At the moment it's a drop in replacement in the struts2 tree,
>>> further down the line the svn directories will provide the
>>> ability to merge the changes in as smoothly as possible.
>>>
>>> I've deliberately avoided publishing a jar to avoid people
>>> going "Hey, theres a jar, let me dump it in my app, wait a
>>> minute it doesn't work, thats just cr**", and moving on. If
>>> people want to use the code they'll need to understand it's a
>>> work in progress.
>>
>> That's great, but you're effectively limiting the audience of people who
>> can test this. I don't know how to build it. I tried, but I couldn't.
>> I'm sure it's obvious to people familiar with the structure of Struts2,
>> or
>> using Maven2. I don't have enough of either yet.
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Pedro Herrera" <pe...@hotmail.com>
>>> To: <de...@struts.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:47 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This point is clear to me,but ,why don´t you leave a only the
>>> jar available
>>> instead the all structure (.pom, src, etc) because is not
>>> working with mvn.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> Herrera
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Al Sutton wrote:
>>> >
>>> > It's a download URL for a zip file, not a maven repository.
>>> >
>>> > I don't want people to confuse it with the official S2.1
>>> dojo plugin.
>>> >
>>> > Al.
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "Pedro Herrera" <pe...@hotmail.com>
>>> > To: <de...@struts.apache.org>
>>> > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 2:19 PM
>>> > Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> is the source correct
>>> (http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip);
>>> >>
>>> >> I cant execute mvn package command.
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------
>>> >> java.lang.RuntimeException: java.io.FileNotFoundException:
>>> >>
>>> C:\Temp\struts_dojo1.1\dojo\..\..\core\src\site\resources\tags
>>> \ajax\a.html
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Herrera
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Al Sutton wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail
>>> servers are saying
>>> >>> my
>>> >>> last 3 attempts to send this via my normal mailbox are spam :(]
>>> >>>
>>> >>> All,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which
>>> uses Dojo 1.1
>>> >>> instead of 0.4.3.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The two main changes that were necessary were;
>>> >>>
>>> >>> * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes
>>> in dojo API
>>> >>> * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests
>>> (after they've
>>> >>> been modified due to the changes above), so I would
>>> appreciate anyone
>>> >>> else's help in either checking this into subversion so
>>> can start to be
>>> >>> official, or grab it, thrash it, and discuss problems
>>> here so we can get
>>> >>> it into a state fit for S2.1
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If you want to download the source with svn directories
>>> you can from
>>> >>> http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Al.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> View this message in context:
>>> >>
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework
>> -tp16442992p16491430.html
>>> >> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework
>> -tp16442992p16508212.html
>>> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rainer Hermanns
> aixcept
> Mariahilfstrasse 9
> 52062 Aachen - Germany
> w: http://aixcept.de/
> t: +49-241-4012247
> m: +49-170-3432912
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
RE: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Rainer Hermanns <he...@aixcept.de>.
Hi,
I'd propose to get out 2.1.1 test build asap and integrate the latest dojo
stuff into 2.1.2-dev as well as the other updated plugins.
I'd volunteer for this unless Musachy has time to do so.
So we can test all other features and enhancements we integrated in the
past months and can continue with the development of S2.1.x.
What do you think?
cheers,
Rainer
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Al Sutton [mailto:al.sutton@alsutton.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 12:44 AM
>> To: Struts Developers List
>> Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>>
>> All of the bits are left in place so that the source can be
>> re-integrated as easily as possible when appropriate.
>>
>> At the moment it's a drop in replacement in the struts2 tree,
>> further down the line the svn directories will provide the
>> ability to merge the changes in as smoothly as possible.
>>
>> I've deliberately avoided publishing a jar to avoid people
>> going "Hey, theres a jar, let me dump it in my app, wait a
>> minute it doesn't work, thats just cr**", and moving on. If
>> people want to use the code they'll need to understand it's a
>> work in progress.
>
> That's great, but you're effectively limiting the audience of people who
> can test this. I don't know how to build it. I tried, but I couldn't.
> I'm sure it's obvious to people familiar with the structure of Struts2, or
> using Maven2. I don't have enough of either yet.
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Pedro Herrera" <pe...@hotmail.com>
>> To: <de...@struts.apache.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:47 AM
>> Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>>
>>
>>
>> This point is clear to me,but ,why don´t you leave a only the
>> jar available
>> instead the all structure (.pom, src, etc) because is not
>> working with mvn.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Herrera
>>
>>
>>
>> Al Sutton wrote:
>> >
>> > It's a download URL for a zip file, not a maven repository.
>> >
>> > I don't want people to confuse it with the official S2.1
>> dojo plugin.
>> >
>> > Al.
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Pedro Herrera" <pe...@hotmail.com>
>> > To: <de...@struts.apache.org>
>> > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 2:19 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> is the source correct
>> (http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip);
>> >>
>> >> I cant execute mvn package command.
>> >>
>> >> ---------
>> >> java.lang.RuntimeException: java.io.FileNotFoundException:
>> >>
>> C:\Temp\struts_dojo1.1\dojo\..\..\core\src\site\resources\tags
>> \ajax\a.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Herrera
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Al Sutton wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail
>> servers are saying
>> >>> my
>> >>> last 3 attempts to send this via my normal mailbox are spam :(]
>> >>>
>> >>> All,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which
>> uses Dojo 1.1
>> >>> instead of 0.4.3.
>> >>>
>> >>> The two main changes that were necessary were;
>> >>>
>> >>> * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes
>> in dojo API
>> >>> * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
>> >>>
>> >>> By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests
>> (after they've
>> >>> been modified due to the changes above), so I would
>> appreciate anyone
>> >>> else's help in either checking this into subversion so
>> can start to be
>> >>> official, or grab it, thrash it, and discuss problems
>> here so we can get
>> >>> it into a state fit for S2.1
>> >>>
>> >>> If you want to download the source with svn directories
>> you can from
>> >>> http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> Al.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework
> -tp16442992p16491430.html
>> >> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework
> -tp16442992p16508212.html
>> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
Rainer Hermanns
aixcept
Mariahilfstrasse 9
52062 Aachen - Germany
w: http://aixcept.de/
t: +49-241-4012247
m: +49-170-3432912
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
David,
No problem, the easiest was to compile is to download Struts2 head
(instructions at http://struts.apache.org/dev/builds.html), locate the
plugins\dojo directory, delete it, and replace with the directory from the
zip file.
As for the compiling, follow the build instructions for struts after you've
done the replacement.
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karr, David" <da...@wamu.net>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 4:09 PM
Subject: RE: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Sutton [mailto:al.sutton@alsutton.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 12:44 AM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>
> All of the bits are left in place so that the source can be
> re-integrated as easily as possible when appropriate.
>
> At the moment it's a drop in replacement in the struts2 tree,
> further down the line the svn directories will provide the
> ability to merge the changes in as smoothly as possible.
>
> I've deliberately avoided publishing a jar to avoid people
> going "Hey, theres a jar, let me dump it in my app, wait a
> minute it doesn't work, thats just cr**", and moving on. If
> people want to use the code they'll need to understand it's a
> work in progress.
That's great, but you're effectively limiting the audience of people who can
test this. I don't know how to build it. I tried, but I couldn't. I'm
sure it's obvious to people familiar with the structure of Struts2, or using
Maven2. I don't have enough of either yet.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pedro Herrera" <pe...@hotmail.com>
> To: <de...@struts.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>
>
>
> This point is clear to me,but ,why don´t you leave a only the
> jar available
> instead the all structure (.pom, src, etc) because is not
> working with mvn.
>
> thanks
>
> Herrera
>
>
>
> Al Sutton wrote:
> >
> > It's a download URL for a zip file, not a maven repository.
> >
> > I don't want people to confuse it with the official S2.1
> dojo plugin.
> >
> > Al.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pedro Herrera" <pe...@hotmail.com>
> > To: <de...@struts.apache.org>
> > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 2:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
> >
> >
> >>
> >> is the source correct
> (http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip);
> >>
> >> I cant execute mvn package command.
> >>
> >> ---------
> >> java.lang.RuntimeException: java.io.FileNotFoundException:
> >>
> C:\Temp\struts_dojo1.1\dojo\..\..\core\src\site\resources\tags
> \ajax\a.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Herrera
> >>
> >>
> >> Al Sutton wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail
> servers are saying
> >>> my
> >>> last 3 attempts to send this via my normal mailbox are spam :(]
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which
> uses Dojo 1.1
> >>> instead of 0.4.3.
> >>>
> >>> The two main changes that were necessary were;
> >>>
> >>> * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes
> in dojo API
> >>> * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
> >>>
> >>> By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests
> (after they've
> >>> been modified due to the changes above), so I would
> appreciate anyone
> >>> else's help in either checking this into subversion so
> can start to be
> >>> official, or grab it, thrash it, and discuss problems
> here so we can get
> >>> it into a state fit for S2.1
> >>>
> >>> If you want to download the source with svn directories
> you can from
> >>> http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Al.
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework
-tp16442992p16491430.html
> >> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework
-tp16442992p16508212.html
> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
RE: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by "Karr, David" <da...@wamu.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Sutton [mailto:al.sutton@alsutton.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 12:44 AM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>
> All of the bits are left in place so that the source can be
> re-integrated as easily as possible when appropriate.
>
> At the moment it's a drop in replacement in the struts2 tree,
> further down the line the svn directories will provide the
> ability to merge the changes in as smoothly as possible.
>
> I've deliberately avoided publishing a jar to avoid people
> going "Hey, theres a jar, let me dump it in my app, wait a
> minute it doesn't work, thats just cr**", and moving on. If
> people want to use the code they'll need to understand it's a
> work in progress.
That's great, but you're effectively limiting the audience of people who can test this. I don't know how to build it. I tried, but I couldn't. I'm sure it's obvious to people familiar with the structure of Struts2, or using Maven2. I don't have enough of either yet.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pedro Herrera" <pe...@hotmail.com>
> To: <de...@struts.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>
>
>
> This point is clear to me,but ,why don´t you leave a only the
> jar available
> instead the all structure (.pom, src, etc) because is not
> working with mvn.
>
> thanks
>
> Herrera
>
>
>
> Al Sutton wrote:
> >
> > It's a download URL for a zip file, not a maven repository.
> >
> > I don't want people to confuse it with the official S2.1
> dojo plugin.
> >
> > Al.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pedro Herrera" <pe...@hotmail.com>
> > To: <de...@struts.apache.org>
> > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 2:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
> >
> >
> >>
> >> is the source correct
> (http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip);
> >>
> >> I cant execute mvn package command.
> >>
> >> ---------
> >> java.lang.RuntimeException: java.io.FileNotFoundException:
> >>
> C:\Temp\struts_dojo1.1\dojo\..\..\core\src\site\resources\tags
> \ajax\a.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Herrera
> >>
> >>
> >> Al Sutton wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail
> servers are saying
> >>> my
> >>> last 3 attempts to send this via my normal mailbox are spam :(]
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which
> uses Dojo 1.1
> >>> instead of 0.4.3.
> >>>
> >>> The two main changes that were necessary were;
> >>>
> >>> * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes
> in dojo API
> >>> * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
> >>>
> >>> By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests
> (after they've
> >>> been modified due to the changes above), so I would
> appreciate anyone
> >>> else's help in either checking this into subversion so
> can start to be
> >>> official, or grab it, thrash it, and discuss problems
> here so we can get
> >>> it into a state fit for S2.1
> >>>
> >>> If you want to download the source with svn directories
> you can from
> >>> http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Al.
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework
-tp16442992p16491430.html
> >> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework
-tp16442992p16508212.html
> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
All of the bits are left in place so that the source can be re-integrated as
easily as possible when appropriate.
At the moment it's a drop in replacement in the struts2 tree, further down
the line the svn directories will provide the ability to merge the changes
in as smoothly as possible.
I've deliberately avoided publishing a jar to avoid people going "Hey,
theres a jar, let me dump it in my app, wait a minute it doesn't work, thats
just cr**", and moving on. If people want to use the code they'll need to
understand it's a work in progress.
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pedro Herrera" <pe...@hotmail.com>
To: <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:47 AM
Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
This point is clear to me,but ,why don´t you leave a only the jar available
instead the all structure (.pom, src, etc) because is not working with mvn.
thanks
Herrera
Al Sutton wrote:
>
> It's a download URL for a zip file, not a maven repository.
>
> I don't want people to confuse it with the official S2.1 dojo plugin.
>
> Al.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pedro Herrera" <pe...@hotmail.com>
> To: <de...@struts.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>
>
>>
>> is the source correct (http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip);
>>
>> I cant execute mvn package command.
>>
>> ---------
>> java.lang.RuntimeException: java.io.FileNotFoundException:
>> C:\Temp\struts_dojo1.1\dojo\..\..\core\src\site\resources\tags\ajax\a.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Herrera
>>
>>
>> Al Sutton wrote:
>>>
>>> [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail servers are saying
>>> my
>>> last 3 attempts to send this via my normal mailbox are spam :(]
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which uses Dojo 1.1
>>> instead of 0.4.3.
>>>
>>> The two main changes that were necessary were;
>>>
>>> * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes in dojo API
>>> * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
>>>
>>> By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests (after they've
>>> been modified due to the changes above), so I would appreciate anyone
>>> else's help in either checking this into subversion so can start to be
>>> official, or grab it, thrash it, and discuss problems here so we can get
>>> it into a state fit for S2.1
>>>
>>> If you want to download the source with svn directories you can from
>>> http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Al.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework-tp16442992p16491430.html
>> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework-tp16442992p16508212.html
Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Pedro Herrera <pe...@hotmail.com>.
This point is clear to me,but ,why don´t you leave a only the jar available
instead the all structure (.pom, src, etc) because is not working with mvn.
thanks
Herrera
Al Sutton wrote:
>
> It's a download URL for a zip file, not a maven repository.
>
> I don't want people to confuse it with the official S2.1 dojo plugin.
>
> Al.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pedro Herrera" <pe...@hotmail.com>
> To: <de...@struts.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>
>
>>
>> is the source correct (http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip);
>>
>> I cant execute mvn package command.
>>
>> ---------
>> java.lang.RuntimeException: java.io.FileNotFoundException:
>> C:\Temp\struts_dojo1.1\dojo\..\..\core\src\site\resources\tags\ajax\a.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Herrera
>>
>>
>> Al Sutton wrote:
>>>
>>> [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail servers are saying
>>> my
>>> last 3 attempts to send this via my normal mailbox are spam :(]
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which uses Dojo 1.1
>>> instead of 0.4.3.
>>>
>>> The two main changes that were necessary were;
>>>
>>> * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes in dojo API
>>> * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
>>>
>>> By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests (after they've
>>> been modified due to the changes above), so I would appreciate anyone
>>> else's help in either checking this into subversion so can start to be
>>> official, or grab it, thrash it, and discuss problems here so we can get
>>> it into a state fit for S2.1
>>>
>>> If you want to download the source with svn directories you can from
>>> http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Al.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework-tp16442992p16491430.html
>> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework-tp16442992p16508212.html
Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
It's a download URL for a zip file, not a maven repository.
I don't want people to confuse it with the official S2.1 dojo plugin.
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pedro Herrera" <pe...@hotmail.com>
To: <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>
> is the source correct (http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip);
>
> I cant execute mvn package command.
>
> ---------
> java.lang.RuntimeException: java.io.FileNotFoundException:
> C:\Temp\struts_dojo1.1\dojo\..\..\core\src\site\resources\tags\ajax\a.html
>
>
>
> Herrera
>
>
> Al Sutton wrote:
>>
>> [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail servers are saying my
>> last 3 attempts to send this via my normal mailbox are spam :(]
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which uses Dojo 1.1
>> instead of 0.4.3.
>>
>> The two main changes that were necessary were;
>>
>> * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes in dojo API
>> * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
>>
>> By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests (after they've
>> been modified due to the changes above), so I would appreciate anyone
>> else's help in either checking this into subversion so can start to be
>> official, or grab it, thrash it, and discuss problems here so we can get
>> it into a state fit for S2.1
>>
>> If you want to download the source with svn directories you can from
>> http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Al.
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework-tp16442992p16491430.html
> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Pedro Herrera <pe...@hotmail.com>.
is the source correct (http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip);
I cant execute mvn package command.
---------
java.lang.RuntimeException: java.io.FileNotFoundException:
C:\Temp\struts_dojo1.1\dojo\..\..\core\src\site\resources\tags\ajax\a.html
Herrera
Al Sutton wrote:
>
> [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail servers are saying my
> last 3 attempts to send this via my normal mailbox are spam :(]
>
> All,
>
> I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which uses Dojo 1.1
> instead of 0.4.3.
>
> The two main changes that were necessary were;
>
> * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes in dojo API
> * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
>
> By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests (after they've
> been modified due to the changes above), so I would appreciate anyone
> else's help in either checking this into subversion so can start to be
> official, or grab it, thrash it, and discuss problems here so we can get
> it into a state fit for S2.1
>
> If you want to download the source with svn directories you can from
> http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
>
> Thanks,
>
> Al.
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework-tp16442992p16491430.html
Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Pedro Herrera <pe...@hotmail.com>.
good job. I´ve started a new project and I´m going to test your plugin for
now. I were waiting for this improve for a long time.
Thanks
Herrera
Al Sutton wrote:
>
> [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail servers are saying my
> last 3 attempts to send this via my normal mailbox are spam :(]
>
> All,
>
> I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which uses Dojo 1.1
> instead of 0.4.3.
>
> The two main changes that were necessary were;
>
> * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes in dojo API
> * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
>
> By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests (after they've
> been modified due to the changes above), so I would appreciate anyone
> else's help in either checking this into subversion so can start to be
> official, or grab it, thrash it, and discuss problems here so we can get
> it into a state fit for S2.1
>
> If you want to download the source with svn directories you can from
> http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
>
> Thanks,
>
> Al.
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework-tp16442992p16446671.html
Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
RE: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Tsemach Hadad <TS...@Amdocs.com>.
Thanks Al - We(& Others I know) are waiting for it quite a long time
since we believe that Struts 2 with Dojo 1.X
are very good choice from architecture prespective.
1 note -
We started working with Dojo 1.0 for few months with Struts 2 - (We had
minimal conversion of some of the tags we used)
From what we've learned in last months it was better for us to work on
dojo declarative mode rather than programmatic
since we wanted to use Dojo Struts Components inside Dialogs which
doesn't have executeScripts turned on.
It may be solved by using alternate theme with same FTLs but in
declarative mode ,or configuration in Plug-in level.
thx
tsemach
Amdocs Ltd., MVCInfra A&M
mailto:Tsemach.Hadad@amdocs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Al Sutton [mailto:al.sutton@alsutton.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:18 AM
To: dev@struts.apache.org
Subject: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
[I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail servers are saying
my last 3 attempts to send this via my normal mailbox are spam :(]
All,
I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which uses Dojo 1.1
instead of 0.4.3.
The two main changes that were necessary were;
* baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes in dojo API
* parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests (after they've
been modified due to the changes above), so I would appreciate anyone
else's help in either checking this into subversion so can start to be
official, or grab it, thrash it, and discuss problems here so we can get
it into a state fit for S2.1
If you want to download the source with svn directories you can from
http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
Thanks,
Al.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework-tp1644299
2p16442992.html
Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
You can do, I'm keeping it on my system atm, so I'm happy to co-ordinate
changes.
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karr, David" <da...@wamu.net>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 11:32 PM
Subject: RE: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Is it appropriate at this point to submit a bug for this, and provide a
patch for your changes?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Sutton [mailto:al.sutton@alsutton.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:18 PM
> To: dev@struts.apache.org
> Subject: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>
>
> [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail servers
> are saying my last 3 attempts to send this via my normal
> mailbox are spam :(]
>
> All,
>
> I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which uses
> Dojo 1.1 instead of 0.4.3.
>
> The two main changes that were necessary were;
>
> * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes in dojo API
> * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
>
> By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests
> (after they've been modified due to the changes above), so I
> would appreciate anyone else's help in either checking this
> into subversion so can start to be official, or grab it,
> thrash it, and discuss problems here so we can get it into a
> state fit for S2.1
>
> If you want to download the source with svn directories you
> can from http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
>
> Thanks,
>
> Al.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework
-tp16442992p16442992.html
> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
I think there's been a lot of back end changes, but they have a couple of
API change docs at
http://dojotoolkit.org/book/dojo-porting-guide-0-4-x-0-9
and
http://dojotoolkit.org/book/dojo-porting-guide-0-9-x-1-0
My stuff is definitely a work in progress, so I'm sure people will hit bugs,
but at least we now starting the move :).
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Musachy Barroso" <mu...@gmail.com>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>> How deep are the client-side tests for the Dojo components? My impression
>> was
>> that a fair amount had changed moving from Dojo 0.4mumble -> 1.0.
>>
>
> Pretty much the whole thing changed, as far as I know.
>
> musachy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Musachy Barroso <mu...@gmail.com>.
> How deep are the client-side tests for the Dojo components? My impression was
> that a fair amount had changed moving from Dojo 0.4mumble -> 1.0.
>
Pretty much the whole thing changed, as far as I know.
musachy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Al Sutton <al...@alsutton.com>.
I'm not sure how deep the tests are, but only two needed changing, and those
two were the header tests which needed an update to reflect a removed config
parameter and a pair of parameters that were combined and renamed.
It's working for my needs at the moment, but I'm pretty more bugs will be
discovered as people thrash it.
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Newton" <ne...@yahoo.com>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:03 AM
Subject: RE: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
> How deep are the client-side tests for the Dojo components? My impression
> was
> that a fair amount had changed moving from Dojo 0.4mumble -> 1.0.
>
> I don't know the nature of all the changes that were made, but it makes me
> nervous. Musachy might have a better handle on this.
>
> Dave
>
> --- "Karr, David" <da...@wamu.net> wrote:
>
>> Is it appropriate at this point to submit a bug for this, and provide a
>> patch for your changes?
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Al Sutton [mailto:al.sutton@alsutton.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:18 PM
>> > To: dev@struts.apache.org
>> > Subject: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>> >
>> >
>> > [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail servers
>> > are saying my last 3 attempts to send this via my normal
>> > mailbox are spam :(]
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> > I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which uses
>> > Dojo 1.1 instead of 0.4.3.
>> >
>> > The two main changes that were necessary were;
>> >
>> > * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes in dojo API
>> > * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
>> >
>> > By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests
>> > (after they've been modified due to the changes above), so I
>> > would appreciate anyone else's help in either checking this
>> > into subversion so can start to be official, or grab it,
>> > thrash it, and discuss problems here so we can get it into a
>> > state fit for S2.1
>> >
>> > If you want to download the source with svn directories you
>> > can from http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Al.
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> > http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework
>> -tp16442992p16442992.html
>> > Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
RE: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>.
How deep are the client-side tests for the Dojo components? My impression was
that a fair amount had changed moving from Dojo 0.4mumble -> 1.0.
I don't know the nature of all the changes that were made, but it makes me
nervous. Musachy might have a better handle on this.
Dave
--- "Karr, David" <da...@wamu.net> wrote:
> Is it appropriate at this point to submit a bug for this, and provide a
> patch for your changes?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Al Sutton [mailto:al.sutton@alsutton.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:18 PM
> > To: dev@struts.apache.org
> > Subject: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
> >
> >
> > [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail servers
> > are saying my last 3 attempts to send this via my normal
> > mailbox are spam :(]
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which uses
> > Dojo 1.1 instead of 0.4.3.
> >
> > The two main changes that were necessary were;
> >
> > * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes in dojo API
> > * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
> >
> > By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests
> > (after they've been modified due to the changes above), so I
> > would appreciate anyone else's help in either checking this
> > into subversion so can start to be official, or grab it,
> > thrash it, and discuss problems here so we can get it into a
> > state fit for S2.1
> >
> > If you want to download the source with svn directories you
> > can from http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Al.
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework
> -tp16442992p16442992.html
> > Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
RE: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
Posted by "Karr, David" <da...@wamu.net>.
Is it appropriate at this point to submit a bug for this, and provide a
patch for your changes?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Sutton [mailto:al.sutton@alsutton.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:18 PM
> To: dev@struts.apache.org
> Subject: Dojo plugin update using 1.1.0 framework
>
>
> [I'm posing this via nabble because the apache mail servers
> are saying my last 3 attempts to send this via my normal
> mailbox are spam :(]
>
> All,
>
> I have a barely tested version of the dojo plug-in which uses
> Dojo 1.1 instead of 0.4.3.
>
> The two main changes that were necessary were;
>
> * baseRelativePath replaced by baseUrl to reflect changes in dojo API
> * parseContent removed due to removal from dojo API.
>
> By barely tested I mean it passes the inbuilt maven tests
> (after they've been modified due to the changes above), so I
> would appreciate anyone else's help in either checking this
> into subversion so can start to be official, or grab it,
> thrash it, and discuss problems here so we can get it into a
> state fit for S2.1
>
> If you want to download the source with svn directories you
> can from http://www.alsutton.com/dojo_1_1_0_for_2_1_1.zip
>
> Thanks,
>
> Al.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-plugin-update-using-1.1.0-framework
-tp16442992p16442992.html
> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org