You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org> on 2002/06/26 20:05:24 UTC
Planning for 1.1 beta 2
I'd like to continue swatting the remaining bugs in 1.1, and improve the
existing documentation, with a goal to release a beta 2 of Strust 1.1 in
the near future (ideally by July 8 or so). Part of my motivation for the
timing is that Sun is shutting down next week, so I will have some quality
time hours available when I'm actually awake :-).
Are the other committers interested in working towards such a goal?
One thing I'd like to add to the TODO list is a review of all our custom
tag implementations versus the JSP spec requirements -- particularly in
the area of tag pooling and when the bodyContent can be accessed. The
recent work on Jasper2 (in Tomcat 4.1.x), which will support tag pooling,
has indicated we probably have some tags that don't completely conform to
the contracts -- and we need to fix that before any final release.
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Planning for 1.1 beta 2
Posted by Cedric Dumoulin <ce...@lifl.fr>.
+1 for me
"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> I'd like to continue swatting the remaining bugs in 1.1, and improve the
> existing documentation, with a goal to release a beta 2 of Strust 1.1 in
> the near future (ideally by July 8 or so). Part of my motivation for the
> timing is that Sun is shutting down next week, so I will have some quality
> time hours available when I'm actually awake :-).
>
> Are the other committers interested in working towards such a goal?
>
> One thing I'd like to add to the TODO list is a review of all our custom
> tag implementations versus the JSP spec requirements -- particularly in
> the area of tag pooling and when the bodyContent can be accessed. The
> recent work on Jasper2 (in Tomcat 4.1.x), which will support tag pooling,
> has indicated we probably have some tags that don't completely conform to
> the contracts -- and we need to fix that before any final release.
>
> Craig
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Planning for 1.1 beta 2
Posted by Rob Leland <rl...@apache.org>.
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
>Are the other committers interested in working towards such a goal?
>
+1, I'll try to finish up the UML for classes.
and put in place holders for the added package descriptions.
Plus pitch in else where.
-Rob
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Planning for 1.1 beta 2
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
I started a "Core Technologies" page that we could insert before the
Introduction as Chapter zero.
These gives a brief description of each of our enabling technologies and
links elsewhere for more detail.
If we wanted to add more detail later, it would be easy to expand on
this page.
http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/userGuide/technologies.html
I only did the first three this morning, but should be able to do the
rest tonight.
-T.
Ted Husted wrote:
> I could do an encylopedia-style paragraph about each of the technologies
> enumerated at the top of
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/userGuide/introduction.html
>
> and then move the rest of the page into another section. That would at
> least clearly define our terms.
>
> Much more than that, and we'd start to cover the same ground as the Web
> Services Tutorial
>
> http://java.sun.com/webservices/docs/1.0/tutorial/index.html
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Planning for 1.1 beta 2
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> I think the basic Struts download needs at least an initial walkthrough on
> all of the technologies it provides. Much a I'd love to be lazy and rely
> on the incredible amount of effort others have put into this :-), we can't
> just have nothing.
I could do an encylopedia-style paragraph about each of the technologies
enumerated at the top of
http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/userGuide/introduction.html
and then move the rest of the page into another section. That would at
least clearly define our terms.
Much more than that, and we'd start to cover the same ground as the Web
Services Tutorial
http://java.sun.com/webservices/docs/1.0/tutorial/index.html
-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY US
-- Java Web Development with Struts
-- Tel: +1 585 737-3463
-- Web: http://husted.com/about/services
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Planning for 1.1 beta 2
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>.
On 27 Jun 2002, Arron Bates wrote:
> Date: 27 Jun 2002 14:33:11 +1000
> From: Arron Bates <st...@keyboardmonkey.com>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <st...@jakarta.apache.org>
> To: Struts Developers List <st...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Planning for 1.1 beta 2
>
> > > Meanwhile, I've set up a "diff" section in the release notes with
> > > pointers to every thing with 1.1 features or deprecations, that could
> > > then be used to help create the 1.1 doc section.
> > >
> > > http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/userGuide/release-notes.html#diff
> > >
> > > AFAIK, the JavaDocs are all updated with @since 1.1's now, and refer to
> > > execute rather than perform, and so forth. The ActionServlet docs may
> > > need to expand on the new flow, but otherwise we seem to be good on the
> > > JavaDoc front. The next thing I was going to do was finish-up on the
> > > release notes, so that everything linked in the diff section is
> > > mentioned above, and maybe trundle through the CVS mail log.
> > >
> >
> > Someplace, we definitely need discussions of dynamic form beans (probably
> > in the building-the-view page) and sub-applications (either an expansion
> > on "configuring the controller" or perhaps a page on advanced topics or
> > some such.
>
> What's your definition of a "dynamic form bean"?...
>
Specifically, DynaActionForm. There's not a lot that needs to be said,
but AFAIK we don't say anything at all in the docs at this point.
> I have some docco coming on how to make a complex bean with nested lists
> etc and how to make it properly with that new commons collection so that
> the bean isn't fully managed in the constructor and thus allowed to
> reside properly in request scope. People are constantly pushing their
> beans to the session because it's harder to build them with lists et al.
>
> Is this something what you're talking about?...
>
> Making concise docco type stuff for the site, and a tutorial hand-holder
> for my site. Unless Struts site wants more of this kind of stuff too?...
>
I think the basic Struts download needs at least an initial walkthrough on
all of the technologies it provides. Much a I'd love to be lazy and rely
on the incredible amount of effort others have put into this :-), we can't
just have nothing.
>
> Arron.
>
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Planning for 1.1 beta 2
Posted by Arron Bates <st...@keyboardmonkey.com>.
> > Meanwhile, I've set up a "diff" section in the release notes with
> > pointers to every thing with 1.1 features or deprecations, that could
> > then be used to help create the 1.1 doc section.
> >
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/userGuide/release-notes.html#diff
> >
> > AFAIK, the JavaDocs are all updated with @since 1.1's now, and refer to
> > execute rather than perform, and so forth. The ActionServlet docs may
> > need to expand on the new flow, but otherwise we seem to be good on the
> > JavaDoc front. The next thing I was going to do was finish-up on the
> > release notes, so that everything linked in the diff section is
> > mentioned above, and maybe trundle through the CVS mail log.
> >
>
> Someplace, we definitely need discussions of dynamic form beans (probably
> in the building-the-view page) and sub-applications (either an expansion
> on "configuring the controller" or perhaps a page on advanced topics or
> some such.
What's your definition of a "dynamic form bean"?...
I have some docco coming on how to make a complex bean with nested lists
etc and how to make it properly with that new commons collection so that
the bean isn't fully managed in the constructor and thus allowed to
reside properly in request scope. People are constantly pushing their
beans to the session because it's harder to build them with lists et al.
Is this something what you're talking about?...
Making concise docco type stuff for the site, and a tutorial hand-holder
for my site. Unless Struts site wants more of this kind of stuff too?...
Arron.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Planning for 1.1 beta 2
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Ted Husted wrote:
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:44:48 -0400
> From: Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <st...@jakarta.apache.org>,
> ted@husted.com
> To: Struts Developers List <st...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Planning for 1.1 beta 2
>
> For the docs, do you think it might be useful to add a new 1.1 section
> and march through the new features there, rather than patch the 1.0
> docs?
>
I think a "whats new" tour in the release notes is certainly useful, but
I'm not sure it makes sense to segregate the new stuff elsewhere. For
example, in the building_controller.xml page, it makes sense to talk about
the new exception handling options.
> A 1.1 section might be easier to create, since we won't have to worry
> about segues, and will do double-duty as an upgraders guide. Of course,
> we could still go back and put in references to the 1.1 features in the
> appropriate places int the 1.0 chapters. Just thinking it might be
> easier if we don't have to fuss with splicing the narrative.
>
> Generally, I'd like to try and start reusing more of the JavaDocs in the
> User Guide. It seems to me that the User Guide should organize the
> presentation of the classes and add usage examples, but that our
> (meaning mostly Craig's =:0) JavaDocs are so good, maybe we should
> cutting and pasting more of those over,
or linking to them, since we know where the JavaDocs are compared to the
user's guide.
> rather than writing the same
> thing in different words. Long term, this would also help keep things
> synched, since it would be easier to conform the guide to the JavaDocs
> (and vice versa). More like what we did with the Developers Guides, I
> guess, except that there would one(s) for the Action, Config, and Util
> classes.
>
I'm pretty happy with how it worked out to double-duty the tag library
developer's guides. The package.html for the non-tag-library packages
could serve the same role for the Java programmer -- with the added
benefit that even people who don't read documentation often look at the
JavaDocs, so they have a better chance of seeing this stuff.
> I don't want to get into that for the 1.0 User Guide now, but we could
> start on that path for the 1.1 chapter, and see how it goes.
>
Agreed -- I don't think we need to do anything other than critical
bugfixes in 1.0.
> Meanwhile, I've set up a "diff" section in the release notes with
> pointers to every thing with 1.1 features or deprecations, that could
> then be used to help create the 1.1 doc section.
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/userGuide/release-notes.html#diff
>
> AFAIK, the JavaDocs are all updated with @since 1.1's now, and refer to
> execute rather than perform, and so forth. The ActionServlet docs may
> need to expand on the new flow, but otherwise we seem to be good on the
> JavaDoc front. The next thing I was going to do was finish-up on the
> release notes, so that everything linked in the diff section is
> mentioned above, and maybe trundle through the CVS mail log.
>
Someplace, we definitely need discussions of dynamic form beans (probably
in the building-the-view page) and sub-applications (either an expansion
on "configuring the controller" or perhaps a page on advanced topics or
some such.
> -T.
>
Craig
> James Holmes wrote:
> >
> > +1 and more than happy to help with bugs and docs.
> >
> > -james
> > james@jamesholmes.com
> > http://www.jamesholmes.com/struts/
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Planning for 1.1 beta 2
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
For the docs, do you think it might be useful to add a new 1.1 section
and march through the new features there, rather than patch the 1.0
docs?
A 1.1 section might be easier to create, since we won't have to worry
about segues, and will do double-duty as an upgraders guide. Of course,
we could still go back and put in references to the 1.1 features in the
appropriate places int the 1.0 chapters. Just thinking it might be
easier if we don't have to fuss with splicing the narrative.
Generally, I'd like to try and start reusing more of the JavaDocs in the
User Guide. It seems to me that the User Guide should organize the
presentation of the classes and add usage examples, but that our
(meaning mostly Craig's =:0) JavaDocs are so good, maybe we should
cutting and pasting more of those over, rather than writing the same
thing in different words. Long term, this would also help keep things
synched, since it would be easier to conform the guide to the JavaDocs
(and vice versa). More like what we did with the Developers Guides, I
guess, except that there would one(s) for the Action, Config, and Util
classes.
I don't want to get into that for the 1.0 User Guide now, but we could
start on that path for the 1.1 chapter, and see how it goes.
Meanwhile, I've set up a "diff" section in the release notes with
pointers to every thing with 1.1 features or deprecations, that could
then be used to help create the 1.1 doc section.
http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/userGuide/release-notes.html#diff
AFAIK, the JavaDocs are all updated with @since 1.1's now, and refer to
execute rather than perform, and so forth. The ActionServlet docs may
need to expand on the new flow, but otherwise we seem to be good on the
JavaDoc front. The next thing I was going to do was finish-up on the
release notes, so that everything linked in the diff section is
mentioned above, and maybe trundle through the CVS mail log.
-T.
James Holmes wrote:
>
> +1 and more than happy to help with bugs and docs.
>
> -james
> james@jamesholmes.com
> http://www.jamesholmes.com/struts/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Planning for 1.1 beta 2
Posted by James Holmes <jh...@yahoo.com>.
+1 and more than happy to help with bugs and docs.
-james
james@jamesholmes.com
http://www.jamesholmes.com/struts/
--- "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd like to continue swatting the remaining bugs in
> 1.1, and improve the
> existing documentation, with a goal to release a
> beta 2 of Strust 1.1 in
> the near future (ideally by July 8 or so). Part of
> my motivation for the
> timing is that Sun is shutting down next week, so I
> will have some quality
> time hours available when I'm actually awake :-).
>
> Are the other committers interested in working
> towards such a goal?
>
> One thing I'd like to add to the TODO list is a
> review of all our custom
> tag implementations versus the JSP spec requirements
> -- particularly in
> the area of tag pooling and when the bodyContent can
> be accessed. The
> recent work on Jasper2 (in Tomcat 4.1.x), which will
> support tag pooling,
> has indicated we probably have some tags that don't
> completely conform to
> the contracts -- and we need to fix that before any
> final release.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>