You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> on 2006/04/17 21:39:00 UTC
XWork and Struts Action 2.0
What's the plan for XWork? I would recommend against keeping it as a
third party dependency and for copying the necessary code over into
the Struts repository and refactoring it (clean up exception handling,
remove statics, better integrate APIs, etc.). We could keep the Java
packages separate (if we really think it's worth it), but there's
definitely no need for two separate projects. Looking in two places
for the documentation and API is a huge pain, not to mention confusing
for new users.
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Whether XWork is moved to Apache or not, I 100% agree the docs and API should be in a single location. WebWork has been
doing this for a while, and I think we should continue the practice. The relationship between Action 2 and XWork could
be like Action 1 and Commons Validator - the user doesn't have to go to the Commons Validator site for docs; they are
well-integrated.
Don
Bob Lee wrote:
> What's the plan for XWork? I would recommend against keeping it as a
> third party dependency and for copying the necessary code over into
> the Struts repository and refactoring it (clean up exception handling,
> remove statics, better integrate APIs, etc.). We could keep the Java
> packages separate (if we really think it's worth it), but there's
> definitely no need for two separate projects. Looking in two places
> for the documentation and API is a huge pain, not to mention confusing
> for new users.
>
> Bob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com>.
+1 to moving it over. I don't care about package naming, but agree the
Javadocs should be in the same location.
Matt
On 4/17/06, Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> wrote:
> What's the plan for XWork? I would recommend against keeping it as a
> third party dependency and for copying the necessary code over into
> the Struts repository and refactoring it (clean up exception handling,
> remove statics, better integrate APIs, etc.). We could keep the Java
> packages separate (if we really think it's worth it), but there's
> definitely no need for two separate projects. Looking in two places
> for the documentation and API is a huge pain, not to mention confusing
> for new users.
>
> Bob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
[action2] Java 5 support (was XWork and Struts Action 2.0)
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
This has been a topic I've been wondering about for a while: would it be possible to move to Java 5, then use a tool
such as Retroweaver [1] to provide Java 1.4 support? I'm not prepared to completely abandon Java 1.4 users, but Bob
does make some good points regarding the concern for falling too far behind.
Does anyone have any experience with such an approach?
Don
[1] http://retroweaver.sourceforge.net/
Bob Lee wrote:
> Without saying whether we should support 1.4 or not, realistically
> we're talking about Struts 2.0.0 in production some time after August
> depending how long it takes users to port their applications, not
> right now, at this moment, right? JDK 1.6 comes out in the fall at
> which point 1.4 will be two major releases behind. We must embrace
> 1.5. We should keep in mind that:
>
> - 1.4 support will add complexity and require more development time
> - 1.4 will become less relevant pretty quickly
> - 1.4 users have two other options: Struts 1.2 and WebWork 2.2
>
> Bob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Claus Ibsen <fo...@opensymphony.com>.
Bob this is really a great list for doing some house cleaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=52211#52211
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@apache.org>.
This is a great list, thanks for taking the time to put it up. I may not agree with everything, but it is sure to spark
conversation :)
Don
Bob Lee wrote:
> On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> wrote:
>> I'll set up the "rough spots" page.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/struts/RoughSpots?action=show
>
> Bob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Rough Spots (was: XWork and Struts Action 2.0)
Posted by Gabe <gj...@yahoo.com>.
Also, should we seperate these issues as XWork and SAF issues? The XWork issues can just be entered into XWork JIRA and linked to from this page. (Some are already there). Then, this page can serve as a list of the critical issues before release.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com>
To: dev@struts.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:38:10 AM
Subject: Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
I've added my comments inline...
As an aside, any chance of us getting Confluence set up? It's painful going back to a regular wiki :-)
> On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> wrote:
> > I'll set up the "rough spots" page.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/struts/RoughSpots?action=show
>
> Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=52269#52269
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com>.
I've added my comments inline...
As an aside, any chance of us getting Confluence set up? It's painful going back to a regular wiki :-)
> On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> wrote:
> > I'll set up the "rough spots" page.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/struts/RoughSpots?action=show
>
> Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=52269#52269
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org>.
On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> wrote:
> I'll set up the "rough spots" page.
http://wiki.apache.org/struts/RoughSpots?action=show
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org>.
You mean we have committers who aren't running 1.5 yet? For shame. ;)
I'll set up the "rough spots" page.
Bob
On 4/18/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When a committer votes +1 on a release, it's taken to mean that the
> committer is using the release in production his or herself, and that
> he or she will support the release with patches and posts to the user
> list. Technically, we only need three +1s to create a release, but we
> like to think more than three committers will be available to support
> a release.
>
> It doesn't matter what all the world is doing. What matters is what
> the committers are doing with their own applications. We aren't
> creating the framework just for other people to use. We are creating
> the framework that we want to use with our own applications, and then
> sharing the wealth with the general public. The Apache term is "We eat
> our own dog food." Before we ask anyone else to put a release in to
> production, we put it into production ourselves. So, the minimum
> release platform has to match what the vast majority of committers are
> now using in production.
>
> If the vast majority of committers are using 1.5, then 1.5 would be an
> option. But that's the only argument that matters. We need the
> committers to be using 1.5 at their own shops before we could consider
> changing the release platform here.
>
> If someone were to setup that "rough spots" page, we could also
> include a section where the committers could sign-up for 1.4 or 1.5
> support, based on what they are doing at work.
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> wrote:
> Without saying whether we should support 1.4 or not, realistically
> we're talking about Struts 2.0.0 in production some time after August
> depending how long it takes users to port their applications, not
> right now, at this moment, right? JDK 1.6 comes out in the fall at
> which point 1.4 will be two major releases behind. We must embrace
> 1.5. We should keep in mind that:
>
> - 1.4 support will add complexity and require more development time
> - 1.4 will become less relevant pretty quickly
> - 1.4 users have two other options: Struts 1.2 and WebWork 2.2
Here's the thing:
When a committer votes +1 on a release, it's taken to mean that the
committer is using the release in production his or herself, and that
he or she will support the release with patches and posts to the user
list. Technically, we only need three +1s to create a release, but we
like to think more than three committers will be available to support
a release.
It doesn't matter what all the world is doing. What matters is what
the committers are doing with their own applications. We aren't
creating the framework just for other people to use. We are creating
the framework that we want to use with our own applications, and then
sharing the wealth with the general public. The Apache term is "We eat
our own dog food." Before we ask anyone else to put a release in to
production, we put it into production ourselves. So, the minimum
release platform has to match what the vast majority of committers are
now using in production.
If the vast majority of committers are using 1.5, then 1.5 would be an
option. But that's the only argument that matters. We need the
committers to be using 1.5 at their own shops before we could consider
changing the release platform here.
If someone were to setup that "rough spots" page, we could also
include a section where the committers could sign-up for 1.4 or 1.5
support, based on what they are doing at work.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org>.
On 4/18/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would tend to disagree. I feel that the separate of concerns between
> XWork and a web application front end are important. I don't believe
> it would be helpful to start lumping things back together again.
Providing Struts users with a complete, cohesive API doesn't preclude
this separation.
> I do think one problem is that our approach to referring to XWork in
> the WW book and documentation is inconsistent. There is a tendency to
> refer to everything as WebWork when it is not. Moving forward, I think
> we simply need to be more carefult to say XWork when we mean XWork and
> SAF when we mean SAF, and perhaps just refer to "the framework" when
> we do not care to make the distinction.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. 99.9% of users (100% of Struts
users) don't care about this separation, and they have trouble with
it. Even the authors have trouble keeping it straight.
> No, Struts Action 2.0 will *not* require Java 1.5. I'm sure some
> future release will increment the platform, but right now, most
> everyone I know is using Java 1.4 in production. Action 2.0 is meant
> to be something that we can all start using in production now.
Without saying whether we should support 1.4 or not, realistically
we're talking about Struts 2.0.0 in production some time after August
depending how long it takes users to port their applications, not
right now, at this moment, right? JDK 1.6 comes out in the fall at
which point 1.4 will be two major releases behind. We must embrace
1.5. We should keep in mind that:
- 1.4 support will add complexity and require more development time
- 1.4 will become less relevant pretty quickly
- 1.4 users have two other options: Struts 1.2 and WebWork 2.2
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Gabe <gj...@yahoo.com>.
Ted,
The below reason (3rd paragraph, man i wish yahoo did the little > things) is why we should probably decide to move XWork over now or forever hold our peace, unless of course phase I is supposed to be an alpha or preview release and phase II is mainly when Action 2 will be in production. In that case we can do anything we want and change it later. However, if we start creating a lingo and pass that lingo on to users creating production apps based on it, then changing that lingo would lead to frustrated developers.
I agree that moving over XWork has it's issues (2nd paragraph), but an important question to weigh against that is how do we want to set up the framework long term. Notice how much more elegant it is to say "Struts Web", "Struts Core" and just SAF than to say SAF, XWork and "the framework" respectively. Another important question is whether we would want to go through XWork to decide what to take out and add in in preparation for action 2, for example, creating an XWork 2.0 if XWork is to stay at OS.
Also, I want to make it clear that moving XWork over (1st paragraph) does not imply lumping everything together, something I am strongly against as well. In fact I was more worried about XWork related features being added to SAF 2 if they are seperate, but it seems like everyone here is pretty committed to not let that happen.
Gabe
----- Original Message ----
From: Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>
To: Struts Developers List <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:24:06 PM
Subject: Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
I would tend to disagree. I feel that the separate of concerns between
XWork and a web application front end are important. I don't believe
it would be helpful to start lumping things back together again.
I would definately feel that this would be too big of a change for SAF
2.0.0. No matter how simple it sounds, there would be some detail that
created a showstopper, and then another, and August would turn into
February.
I do think one problem is that our approach to referring to XWork in
the WW book and documentation is inconsistent. There is a tendency to
refer to everything as WebWork when it is not. Moving forward, I think
we simply need to be more carefult to say XWork when we mean XWork and
SAF when we mean SAF, and perhaps just refer to "the framework" when
we do not care to make the distinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> wrote:
> No... but I do think we should shield Struts users from the XWork
> API/documentation as much as possible (i.e. a lot more than WebWork
> does). I _suppose_ it's nice that you can drop down to XWork and do
> non-web things, but I don't think we need to expose 99.9% of Struts
> users to this. For starters, we should have a struts.xml, not an
> xwork.xml.
I would tend to disagree. I feel that the separate of concerns between
XWork and a web application front end are important. I don't believe
it would be helpful to start lumping things back together again.
I would definately feel that this would be too big of a change for SAF
2.0.0. No matter how simple it sounds, there would be some detail that
created a showstopper, and then another, and August would turn into
February.
I do think one problem is that our approach to referring to XWork in
the WW book and documentation is inconsistent. There is a tendency to
refer to everything as WebWork when it is not. Moving forward, I think
we simply need to be more carefult to say XWork when we mean XWork and
SAF when we mean SAF, and perhaps just refer to "the framework" when
we do not care to make the distinction.
> I think support for generics is a must. Struts 2.0.0 will require JDK
> 1.5, right? For example, getParameters() should return Map<String,
> String[]>.
No, Struts Action 2.0 will *not* require Java 1.5. I'm sure some
future release will increment the platform, but right now, most
everyone I know is using Java 1.4 in production. Action 2.0 is meant
to be something that we can all start using in production now.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> wrote:
>> It will be harder for me at first, but I'd
>> like to see us take this opportunity to smooth over some of the rough
>> spots so we don't have to break compatibility again down the road.
>
> It would be helpful if someone started a wiki page to itemize the
> "rough spots", which I take to mean WW2.2 legacies that we would not
> want to bring forward. Of course, WW has been doing this all along. WW
> 2.2 not only added functionality to WW 2.1, but also changed some
> critical defaults, like the default syntax for the tags.
+1 !
Don
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> wrote:
> It will be harder for me at first, but I'd
> like to see us take this opportunity to smooth over some of the rough
> spots so we don't have to break compatibility again down the road.
It would be helpful if someone started a wiki page to itemize the
"rough spots", which I take to mean WW2.2 legacies that we would not
want to bring forward. Of course, WW has been doing this all along. WW
2.2 not only added functionality to WW 2.1, but also changed some
critical defaults, like the default syntax for the tags.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org>.
On 4/18/06, Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com> wrote:
> Ahh, you're talking about forking it and copying the source into Struts Action 2?
No... but I do think we should shield Struts users from the XWork
API/documentation as much as possible (i.e. a lot more than WebWork
does). I _suppose_ it's nice that you can drop down to XWork and do
non-web things, but I don't think we need to expose 99.9% of Struts
users to this. For starters, we should have a struts.xml, not an
xwork.xml.
Both Jason and Ted mentioned compatibility. Ted, I completely support
the need to maintain velocity.
We've been using WebWork heavily for about a year and a half. I think
maintaining backward compatibility after you release Struts 2.0.0 is
an order of magnitude more important than maintaining backward
compatibility with WebWork. It will be harder for me at first, but I'd
like to see us take this opportunity to smooth over some of the rough
spots so we don't have to break compatibility again down the road.
I think support for generics is a must. Struts 2.0.0 will require JDK
1.5, right? For example, getParameters() should return Map<String,
String[]>.
Thanks,
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com>.
> On 4/18/06, Jason Carreira
> <fo...@opensymphony.com> wrote:
> > > This doesn't concern XWork itself.
> >
> > Huh? I thought we were talking about moving it?
>
> I didn't say anything about moving it.
>
Ahh, you're talking about forking it and copying the source into Struts Action 2?
-(as many as I'm allowed to vote)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=51950#51950
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org>.
On 4/18/06, Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com> wrote:
> > This doesn't concern XWork itself.
>
> Huh? I thought we were talking about moving it?
I didn't say anything about moving it.
> Okay, so make your Action implement ServletContextAware, ServletRequestAware, etc.
I was specifically thinking about interceptors. We never access
servlet classes in actions, but we sometimes need to in interceptors.
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Ian Roughley wrote:
> Don Brown wrote:
>> Bob Lee wrote:
>>> Also, how do the tags relate to JSTL? Are we just going to ignore
>>> JSTL? Or are we going to use JSTL for JSP with some WebWork-specific
>>> extensions and the WebWork tags for other template engines?
>>
>> I personally prefer the latter option. Struts has always tried to
>> work well with standards, and JSTL should be no exception. I guess
>> the question is whether the overlap tags will be deleted or just
>> deprecated. I'm fine with deleted.
> One of the features I like the most about the WW tags is themes. If we
> move to JSTL tags, is there a corresponding feature? This is the basis
> for the ajax integration.
I don't think this is an either/or decision, but one of eliminating the
overlap. JSTL provides some formatting, conditionals, loops, and XML
manipulation, while Action 2 tags provide visual and form tags. The
only reason we might want to keep the Action 2 tags that overlap is if
they provide value for other presentation technologies, since JSTL is
only for JSP.
Don
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Ian Roughley <ia...@fdar.com>.
Don Brown wrote:
> Bob Lee wrote:
>> Also, how do the tags relate to JSTL? Are we just going to ignore
>> JSTL? Or are we going to use JSTL for JSP with some WebWork-specific
>> extensions and the WebWork tags for other template engines?
>
> I personally prefer the latter option. Struts has always tried to
> work well with standards, and JSTL should be no exception. I guess
> the question is whether the overlap tags will be deleted or just
> deprecated. I'm fine with deleted.
One of the features I like the most about the WW tags is themes. If we
move to JSTL tags, is there a corresponding feature? This is the basis
for the ajax integration.
>
>> Are we going to continue using OGNL, or are we going to use JSP EL?
>
> This is a good, yet complicated question that has seen much discussion
> lately. The bottom line is there are features in OGNL that we can't
> live without: type conversions, projection, and method calls to name a
> few. If we can somehow either a) extend the JSP EL to support these
> features or b) implement OGNL behind the JSP EL API's, I see a future
> in closer collaboration. From what I understand, both are possible,
> just waiting for someone to step up and do the work.
>
> Good to see you on the list, and congrats on the marriage. I admit I
> was a little jealous as to its location :)
>
> Don
>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On 4/17/06, Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com> wrote:
>>> -1 to moving it over. XWork is not just part of WebWork, it's used
>>> other places.
>>>
>>> You're more than welcome to help do the cleanup in XWork for a 2.0
>>> release.
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Posted via Jive Forums
>>> http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=51716#51716
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com>.
> Bob Lee wrote:
> > Also, how do the tags relate to JSTL? Are we just
> going to ignore
> > JSTL? Or are we going to use JSTL for JSP with some
> WebWork-specific
> > extensions and the WebWork tags for other template
> engines?
>
> I personally prefer the latter option. Struts has
> always tried to work well with standards, and JSTL
> should be no
> exception. I guess the question is whether the
> overlap tags will be deleted or just deprecated. I'm
> fine with deleted.
>
Well, the problem is, the webwork tags aren't 1-to-1 mappings with JSTL tags. It usually takes several JSTL tags to do what one WebWork tag does. I'd personally never want to use JSTL because it's too verbose and too much work.
Also, what about backward compatibility for WebWork users?
> > Are we going to continue using OGNL, or are we
> going to use JSP EL?
>
> This is a good, yet complicated question that has
> seen much discussion lately. The bottom line is
> there are features in
> OGNL that we can't live without: type conversions,
> projection, and method calls to name a few. If we
> can somehow either
> a) extend the JSP EL to support these features or b)
> implement OGNL behind the JSP EL API's, I see a
> future in closer
> collaboration. From what I understand, both are
> possible, just waiting for someone to step up and do
> the work.
Did we ever hear back on the expression language JSR that was going to be submitted? If OGNL could just implement a standard API and be a drop-in replacement for JSP EL that would be great, not just for us, but for everyone using JSP who wants a better EL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=51894#51894
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Bob Lee wrote:
> Also, how do the tags relate to JSTL? Are we just going to ignore
> JSTL? Or are we going to use JSTL for JSP with some WebWork-specific
> extensions and the WebWork tags for other template engines?
I personally prefer the latter option. Struts has always tried to work well with standards, and JSTL should be no
exception. I guess the question is whether the overlap tags will be deleted or just deprecated. I'm fine with deleted.
> Are we going to continue using OGNL, or are we going to use JSP EL?
This is a good, yet complicated question that has seen much discussion lately. The bottom line is there are features in
OGNL that we can't live without: type conversions, projection, and method calls to name a few. If we can somehow either
a) extend the JSP EL to support these features or b) implement OGNL behind the JSP EL API's, I see a future in closer
collaboration. From what I understand, both are possible, just waiting for someone to step up and do the work.
Good to see you on the list, and congrats on the marriage. I admit I was a little jealous as to its location :)
Don
>
> Bob
>
> On 4/17/06, Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com> wrote:
>> -1 to moving it over. XWork is not just part of WebWork, it's used other places.
>>
>> You're more than welcome to help do the cleanup in XWork for a 2.0 release.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Posted via Jive Forums
>> http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=51716#51716
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com>.
> This doesn't concern XWork itself.
>
Huh? I thought we were talking about moving it?
> The question is can Struts continue to depend on
> XWork externally and
> actually be cohesive? I want one comprehensive
> manual. I don't
> necesarily want the servlet API to be readily
> available, but when I
> need it, I'd prefer not to go through a ThreadLocal.
Okay, so make your Action implement ServletContextAware, ServletRequestAware, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=51893#51893
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org>.
This doesn't concern XWork itself.
The question is can Struts continue to depend on XWork externally and
actually be cohesive? I want one comprehensive manual. I don't
necesarily want the servlet API to be readily available, but when I
need it, I'd prefer not to go through a ThreadLocal. Having two
completely separate projects where one project that generates two jars
would make more sense has always gotten on my nerves. I think it will
be even worse now that the two projects are at different sites.
Also, how do the tags relate to JSTL? Are we just going to ignore
JSTL? Or are we going to use JSTL for JSP with some WebWork-specific
extensions and the WebWork tags for other template engines?
Are we going to continue using OGNL, or are we going to use JSP EL?
Bob
On 4/17/06, Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com> wrote:
> -1 to moving it over. XWork is not just part of WebWork, it's used other places.
>
> You're more than welcome to help do the cleanup in XWork for a 2.0 release.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via Jive Forums
> http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=51716#51716
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org>.
On 4/19/06, Patrick Lightbody <fo...@opensymphony.com> wrote:
> 1) Drop XW directly in to WW (ie: fork). This is Bob's proposal.
Just to clarify what I already said on the wiki page, I propose that
we make XWork an implementation detail, not part of our API. This
means creating a thin abstraction layer which Struts users will use.
Users' code will have no direct depedencies on XWork. Our
implementation (custom tags, interceptors, etc.) can continue to use
the XWork API so long as we don't expose it to the user. It's
important to get the API right now. We can always go back and clean up
the implementation later.
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 4/17/06, Gabe <gj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's telling that the lion's share of code related issues we've discussed so far about Struts
> 2 on this list (Annotation driven actions, pluggability of expression language, use of "dev
> mode", etc., etc.) are really issues that should be brought to the XWork project and aren't
> really within the scope of what the Webwork project was. Thus, if we don't move over
> XWork, an important task would be to redefine that relationship.
And, IMHO, these are all issues that we should defer until after an
initial SAF 2.0.0 release is made available.
For now, I would suggest that we keep the focus on "phase 1" of the
plan, which was to release SAF 2.0.0 based on the WW 2.2.2 codebase
without making any unnecessary changes. Let's prove that we can move
WebWork over and make a release, before digging into XWork.
Once we have a 2.0.0 release "under our belt", then we can move
forward on "phase 2", where we continue improving and evolving the
codebase. If XWork would like to join the ASF, then the time to
contemplate that step would be during phase 2.
* http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsTi
We don't need to do everything in "one fell swoop". We have all the
time we need, but it's important to retain project velocity so that we
can release early and release often.
I've just gotten back from teaching a four-day training course based
on the WebWork/Action2 version of the infamous Struts MailReader. The
course went well, and I'm finding that Struts Action 1 skills
translate well to WebWork 2.2.
It's true that to teach the whole framework, you do have to dip into
the XWork jar quite often, but whether the XWork jar comes from
OpenSymphony or ASF wouldn't make much difference. Like Jason, I would
be -1 on (re)integrating XWork and WebWork, since that would be a
slipperly slope. What we need to do most is clarify the boundary
between XWork and SAF, so that web developers can see how useful
separating concerns can be.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Gabe <gj...@yahoo.com>.
That it is used in other places isn't necessarily a reason not to move it over. Webwork as a whole, for example, is being used in far more places than XWork alone, yet we have decided to move that over.
What I would propose if we did move it over would be to keep the relationship between XWork and Webwork the way it is now but under the Struts Action Framework 2 umbrella (call it for example Struts 2 core and Struts 2 web). Thus, those projects that currently use XWork would simply depend on Struts 2 core rather than XWork. If we are able to move over the user base successfully, those XWork dependent projects would benefit as well from the increase of the user base that knows XWork, like it and want to extend its functionality. (A more solid Springwork might emerge for example).
It would be easier to define documentation if they were both under a Struts umbrella as well. For example, A "webwork action" never really made sense, but a "struts action" since both would be divisions of struts would.
It's telling that the lion's share of code related issues we've discussed so far about Struts 2 on this list (Annotation driven actions, pluggability of expression language, use of "dev mode", etc., etc.) are really issues that should be brought to the XWork project and aren't really within the scope of what the Webwork project was. Thus, if we don't move over XWork, an important task would be to redefine that relationship.
Now, the last time I wrote a message like this, i was told to get the XWork developers involved, so I think I will go do that now. ;-)
Gabe
----- Original Message ----
From: Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com>
To: dev@struts.apache.org
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:37:59 PM
Subject: Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
-1 to moving it over. XWork is not just part of WebWork, it's used other places.
You're more than welcome to help do the cleanup in XWork for a 2.0 release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=51716#51716
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com>.
-1 to moving it over. XWork is not just part of WebWork, it's used other places.
You're more than welcome to help do the cleanup in XWork for a 2.0 release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=51716#51716
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>.
+1 to your +1
--
James Mitchell
On Apr 19, 2006, at 3:10 PM, Don Brown wrote:
> Bob Lee wrote:
>> I vote for "struts-action.xml".
>
> +1
>
> Don
>> Bob
>> On 4/19/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We might want to keep a straight-line mapping in the naming
>>> conventions, where
>>>
>>> OpenSymphony -> Apache Struts
>>> WebWork -> Action
>>>
>>> A good reason to prefer "action-default.xml" to "struts-default.xml"
>>> is that we want people to be able to use Struts Action 1 and Struts
>>> Action 2 in the same application space. We already have a
>>> "struts-config.xml". While these file names don't actually conflict,
>>> it might be clearer to name the new configurations "action" rather
>>> than "struts" to avoid confusion.
>>>
>>> So, I would suggest that we use "action-default.xml", and any place
>>> where we've started to say "struts", we might consider saying
>>> "action", so as to avoid confusion and conflict with Struts
>>> Action 1.
>>>
>>> -Ted.
>>>
>>> On 4/19/06, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org> wrote:
>>>> Patrick Lightbody wrote:
>>>>> We can definitely start by reading "struts.xml" rather than
>>>>> "xwork.xml".
>>>> +1, works great with struts-default.xml
>>>>
>>>> Don
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> 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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@apache.org>.
Bob Lee wrote:
> I vote for "struts-action.xml".
+1
Don
>
> Bob
>
> On 4/19/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We might want to keep a straight-line mapping in the naming conventions, where
>>
>> OpenSymphony -> Apache Struts
>> WebWork -> Action
>>
>> A good reason to prefer "action-default.xml" to "struts-default.xml"
>> is that we want people to be able to use Struts Action 1 and Struts
>> Action 2 in the same application space. We already have a
>> "struts-config.xml". While these file names don't actually conflict,
>> it might be clearer to name the new configurations "action" rather
>> than "struts" to avoid confusion.
>>
>> So, I would suggest that we use "action-default.xml", and any place
>> where we've started to say "struts", we might consider saying
>> "action", so as to avoid confusion and conflict with Struts Action 1.
>>
>> -Ted.
>>
>> On 4/19/06, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org> wrote:
>>> Patrick Lightbody wrote:
>>>> We can definitely start by reading "struts.xml" rather than "xwork.xml".
>>> +1, works great with struts-default.xml
>>>
>>> Don
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Ricardo Lecheta <fo...@opensymphony.com>.
+1 for struts-action.xml
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=52352#52352
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Claus Ibsen <fo...@opensymphony.com>.
+1 struts-action.xml
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=52373#52373
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Ian Roughley <ia...@fdar.com>.
+1 for struts-action.xml
Bob Lee wrote:
> I vote for "struts-action.xml".
>
> Bob
>
> On 4/19/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We might want to keep a straight-line mapping in the naming conventions, where
>>
>> OpenSymphony -> Apache Struts
>> WebWork -> Action
>>
>> A good reason to prefer "action-default.xml" to "struts-default.xml"
>> is that we want people to be able to use Struts Action 1 and Struts
>> Action 2 in the same application space. We already have a
>> "struts-config.xml". While these file names don't actually conflict,
>> it might be clearer to name the new configurations "action" rather
>> than "struts" to avoid confusion.
>>
>> So, I would suggest that we use "action-default.xml", and any place
>> where we've started to say "struts", we might consider saying
>> "action", so as to avoid confusion and conflict with Struts Action 1.
>>
>> -Ted.
>>
>> On 4/19/06, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Patrick Lightbody wrote:
>>>
>>>> We can definitely start by reading "struts.xml" rather than "xwork.xml".
>>>>
>>> +1, works great with struts-default.xml
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org>.
I vote for "struts-action.xml".
Bob
On 4/19/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We might want to keep a straight-line mapping in the naming conventions, where
>
> OpenSymphony -> Apache Struts
> WebWork -> Action
>
> A good reason to prefer "action-default.xml" to "struts-default.xml"
> is that we want people to be able to use Struts Action 1 and Struts
> Action 2 in the same application space. We already have a
> "struts-config.xml". While these file names don't actually conflict,
> it might be clearer to name the new configurations "action" rather
> than "struts" to avoid confusion.
>
> So, I would suggest that we use "action-default.xml", and any place
> where we've started to say "struts", we might consider saying
> "action", so as to avoid confusion and conflict with Struts Action 1.
>
> -Ted.
>
> On 4/19/06, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org> wrote:
> > Patrick Lightbody wrote:
> > > We can definitely start by reading "struts.xml" rather than "xwork.xml".
> >
> > +1, works great with struts-default.xml
> >
> > Don
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Peter Pilgrim <pe...@xenonique.co.uk>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> We might want to keep a straight-line mapping in the naming conventions, where
>
> OpenSymphony -> Apache Struts
> WebWork -> Action
>
> A good reason to prefer "action-default.xml" to "struts-default.xml"
> is that we want people to be able to use Struts Action 1 and Struts
> Action 2 in the same application space. We already have a
> "struts-config.xml". While these file names don't actually conflict,
> it might be clearer to name the new configurations "action" rather
> than "struts" to avoid confusion.
>
> So, I would suggest that we use "action-default.xml", and any place
> where we've started to say "struts", we might consider saying
> "action", so as to avoid confusion and conflict with Struts Action 1.
>
+1 struts-action.xml
--
Peter Pilgrim ( Windows XP / Thunderbird 1.5 )
__ _____ _____ _____
/ //__ // ___// ___/ + Serverside Java
/ /___/ // /__ / /__ + Struts
/ // ___// ___// ___/ + Expresso Committer
__/ // /__ / /__ / /__ + Independent Contractor
/___//____//____//____/ + Intrinsic Motivation
On Line Resume
||
\\===> `` http://www.xenonsoft.demon.co.uk/no-it-striker.html ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
We might want to keep a straight-line mapping in the naming conventions, where
OpenSymphony -> Apache Struts
WebWork -> Action
A good reason to prefer "action-default.xml" to "struts-default.xml"
is that we want people to be able to use Struts Action 1 and Struts
Action 2 in the same application space. We already have a
"struts-config.xml". While these file names don't actually conflict,
it might be clearer to name the new configurations "action" rather
than "struts" to avoid confusion.
So, I would suggest that we use "action-default.xml", and any place
where we've started to say "struts", we might consider saying
"action", so as to avoid confusion and conflict with Struts Action 1.
-Ted.
On 4/19/06, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org> wrote:
> Patrick Lightbody wrote:
> > We can definitely start by reading "struts.xml" rather than "xwork.xml".
>
> +1, works great with struts-default.xml
>
> Don
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
> We can definitely start by reading "struts.xml" rather than "xwork.xml".
+1, works great with struts-default.xml
Don
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0
Posted by Patrick Lightbody <fo...@opensymphony.com>.
OK, I read this whole thread and will provide my general comments here and my specific comments about Bob's wiki entry on the wiki itself.
First, we need to recognize there are a few different proposals here:
1) Drop XW directly in to WW (ie: fork). This is Bob's proposal.
2) Move XW over to Struts. This is Gabe's proposal.
3) Leave XW where it is. This is Jason's proposal.
For all intents and purposes, I think that we're going to have to live with #3 for some time. This does not, however, preclude us from doing some major overhauls (many of which Bob has suggested) in XW. And the time to do them would be now (as in immediately, as in the second we agree on the changes), so that we can get them addressed before SAF 2.0.
As for the general confusion about XW and WW, we purposely called everything "WebWork" (except in the chapter discussing XW) for the very reason that WebWork/Struts users just don't care about XW. Getting XW out of their face should be an important goal. We can definitely start by reading "struts.xml" rather than "xwork.xml".
I think for now we should leave this discussion alone and instead focus on what needs to happen to WebWork and XW to get it ready for SAF 2.0. Now I'm going to comment on the wiki :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=26278&messageID=52293#52293
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org