Re: why complicate? was: Eliminate Setup Actions

[Dakota Jack <da...@gmail.com>]

Heck, Tapestry is way ahead of JSF, etc.  I have no idea why JSF is
seen as new when Tapestry is ahead of the game.

On Mar 11, 2005 8:34 PM, Tak Yoshida <ta...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Rick,
> 
> I really appreciated that you have looked at my small idea.
> Please write or see the sample code.
> You must get something from it, if you like page oriented.
> OzStruts is totally different from other page oriented framework,
> because it runs on current Struts, meaning it's simple.
> I'm personally not a big fan for event driven approach with page level refresh mechanism.
> If I want it, I would see Echo, Flex, Lazslo, or something that is totally event driven.
> 
> Frank, I have to say somethig about OzStruts, beacuse you might mis-understand it.
> This is totally Struts, and no additional config at all,
> just a standard struts-config.xml only, and even no new element like you suggested.
> Rick also worried about the leaning effort,
> but in this sense, OzStruts is more natuaral approach for Struts developer.
> and I believe it's less effort than leaning tiles.
> You can just consolidate Actions and Forms into one Page class for each jsp file, that it!
> 
> Rick, your analysis could be true, 90% is cleanly done by standard Struts.
> but we have to know that 10% of requirements not cover thestandard Struts
> could cause 90% of maintenance cost, too.
> 
> Tak
> 
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote in <42...@omnytex.com>
> >Glad your on board :)  I am going to work on it tonight, with a little
> >luck I can get at least a first iteration done and post in Bugzilla
> >tomorrow.  Then we'll see if it passes muster for real :)
> >
> >I know what you mean about keeping up with posts... I feel like I'm
> >constantly missing things :)
> >
> >--
> >Frank W. Zammetti
> >Founder and Chief Software Architect
> >Omnytex Technologies
> >http://www.omnytex.com
> >
> >Rick Reumann wrote:
> >> Frank W. Zammetti wrote the following on 3/7/2005 4:07 PM:
> >>
> >>> No argument here!  Hence the reason I didn't want to add a new config
> >>> file
> >>> at all... my solution centers on the idea of adding one new element to an
> >>> Action mapping, <actionSetup> (although, as I wrote that just now, I
> >>> think
> >>> <mappingSetup> maybe makes more sense... perhaps even making these
> >>> attributes of a <forward> makes more sense... eh, thinking out loud
> >>> now!).
> >>>  I doubt very many people would find this onerous.
> >>
> >>
> >> This would be nice! If it were right in the same struts config file, I'd
> >> vote for this approach for sure. Nice suggestion. Sorry I missed your
> >> presentation of this. I can't keep up with all the posts on this list
> >> any more:)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> 
> --
> Tak Yoshida mailto:tak-yoshida@users.sourceforge.net
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> 
> 


-- 
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org