Menu
▾
▴
bodington-developers — Mailing list for Bodington developers
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(41) |
May
(353) |
Jun
(133) |
Jul
(534) |
Aug
(401) |
Sep
(219) |
Oct
(86) |
Nov
(144) |
Dec
(61) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 |
Jan
(200) |
Feb
(130) |
Mar
(345) |
Apr
(153) |
May
(247) |
Jun
(338) |
Jul
(222) |
Aug
(70) |
Sep
(39) |
Oct
(27) |
Nov
(76) |
Dec
(30) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(81) |
Feb
(44) |
Mar
(9) |
Apr
|
May
(3) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(34) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(6) |
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(5) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(7) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Colin T. <col...@ou...> - 2006-03-23 16:09:23
|
Alistair Young wrote: > If I have to vote then 1) ++ but Matthew might have something in the > pipeline and I don't want to implement something that's likely to get > binned. If possible, I'd say Alistair holds off doing his thing (specially for 2.8) and we look at what comes out of Matthew's work on the Spring stuff (or Al collaborates with Matthew on it.) That way Al could even get to use JSPs! To answer Sean, I say 2). I know that's a pain in the short-term for UHI, but I think it's better for all of us in the longer term. Colin > On 23 Mar 2006, at 15:29, Jon Maber wrote: > >> I vote for 1) >> >> within 1) I would be happy for the specific method to be based on >> Alistair's suggestion >> of an additional tag. However, if that gets voted down I would >> suggest the exposure >> of the ServletContext object within XMLTemplateProcessor so any named >> servlet >> can be called from a tempate. >> >> Jon >> >> >> Sean Mehan wrote: >> >>> Hi. I've been lurking on this one, as I'm sitting in a meeting in >>> Hannover. However, tis been an interesting debate. >>> >>> However, alistair is trying to get a method to work to start >>> coupling in >>> stuff to bod now. This would lead to mods that Ox and Aggie said they >>> would be interested in at least in principle. >>> >>> Therefore, we need to reach a decision: >>> >>> 1) Agree a method for code to go in supporting functionality that >>> can go >>> into HEAD; >>> 2) Agree that this will be a UHI only mod. >>> >>> 1 OR 2. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sean >>> >>> >>> >>> <quote who="Alistair Young"> >>> >>>>> so you can call getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, >>>>> response ) >>>>> >>>> but that's where we differ Jon. JSPs are designed to insulate page >>>> developers from code like that. That's what taglibs are for. That's >>>> why I suggested a new tag. That's why I don't want to go down the >>>> servlet route. No-one else does these days to get the type of >>>> functionality we want. >>>> >>>> In light of what Matthew's being working on, it'll be best to wait >>>> and see what we can use of that to give us the functionality we need. >>>> >>>> Alistair >>>> >>>> >>>> On 23 Mar 2006, at 14:57, Jon Maber wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Alistair Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> You won't be going near Facility. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I know Jon but I'll be going somewhere I don't want to go - half >>>>>> hidden servlets - that's not what servlets are designed for. >>>>>> >>>>> It is one of the things that servlets were designed for see the >>>>> method; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ServletContext.getNamedDispatcher(String name) >>>>> >>>>> (http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/servlet/ >>>>> ServletContext.html) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> I think it can be done without adding any new tag types to the >>>>>>> template DTD >>>>>>> >>>>>> and I think it can ... just different ways of looking at the >>>>>> problem. My view is influenced by JSPs/taglibs,your's by bod >>>>>> internals. >>>>>> >>>>> No, I'm not thinking of Bod at all - 'including' is a standard >>>>> thing that servlets do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> out.print( "<P>here's another 400 paragraphs of HTML</P>" ); >>>>>>> >>>>>> that's how bod works though! >>>>>> >>>>> It's not how bod templates work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I don't think I'm getting anywhere now although it's been an >>>>>> interesting ride getting there. >>>>>> >>>>> Just trying to help! I'm not going to say go ahead with your plugin >>>>> tag (which I don't personally object to) because I'm not going to >>>>> be affected by the consequences - that's down to the other >>>>> developers to comment. I'm just suggesting a method they can't >>>>> easily object to because it doesn't involve more that a line or two >>>>> of changes to the Bodington source code - to make the >>>>> ServletContext available to the template so you can call >>>>> getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, response ). I >>>>> don't think that's a bodge or a workaround - it's basically the >>>>> same as what you're proposing but compliant with the servlet spec - >>>>> i.e. you could use it perfectly well outside of Bodington. >>>>> >>>>> Jon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >>>>> language >>>>> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the >>>>> live webcast >>>>> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >>>>> territory! >>>>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >>>>> cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Bodington-developers mailing list >>>>> Bod...@li... >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >>>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >>>> language >>>> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live >>>> webcast >>>> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >>>> territory! >>>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >>>> cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Bodington-developers mailing list >>>> Bod...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >> language >> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live >> webcast >> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >> territory! >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live > webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 15:44:25
|
> al seems to want to do his own it's not a question of me wanting to do anything. I'm just trying to =20 get something that will work and will be easy for template developers =20= to use. Alistair On 23 Mar 2006, at 15:39, Sean Mehan wrote: > > <quote who=3D"Colin Tatham"> >> Sean Mehan wrote: >>> However, alistair is trying to get a method to work to start =20 >>> coupling in >>> stuff to bod now. This would lead to mods that Ox and Aggie said =20 >>> they >>> would be interested in at least in principle. >> >> I know you're going to think that I'm just being difficult :-) but =20= >> what >> are you saying? >> We agreed to My Modules or the 'plugin' stuff in principle? > not plugin in principle > > >> >>> Therefore, we need to reach a decision: >>> >>> 1) Agree a method for code to go in supporting functionality that =20= >>> can go >>> into HEAD; >> >> What's that? Did we come to a conclusion? > > there were two different practical proposals, one by al, one by jon > al seems to want to do his own. so, he is pushing his own boat. > so, you are agreeing to al's tag idea...or not. >> >>> 2) Agree that this will be a UHI only mod. >> >> Meaning it won't go into HEAD? > > yes, it will not go into HEAD with a vote for 2. > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting =20 > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the =20 > live webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding =20 > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=110944&bid$1720&dat=121642= > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 15:39:57
|
<quote who=3D"Colin Tatham"> > Sean Mehan wrote: >> However, alistair is trying to get a method to work to start coupling = in >> stuff to bod now. This would lead to mods that Ox and Aggie said they >> would be interested in at least in principle. > > I know you're going to think that I'm just being difficult :-) but what > are you saying? > We agreed to My Modules or the 'plugin' stuff in principle? not plugin in principle > >> Therefore, we need to reach a decision: >> >> 1) Agree a method for code to go in supporting functionality that can = go >> into HEAD; > > What's that? Did we come to a conclusion? there were two different practical proposals, one by al, one by jon al seems to want to do his own. so, he is pushing his own boat. so, you are agreeing to al's tag idea...or not. > >> 2) Agree that this will be a UHI only mod. > > Meaning it won't go into HEAD? yes, it will not go into HEAD with a vote for 2. > |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 15:38:15
|
If I have to vote then 1) ++ but Matthew might have something in the pipeline and I don't want to implement something that's likely to get binned. Alistair On 23 Mar 2006, at 15:29, Jon Maber wrote: > I vote for 1) > > within 1) I would be happy for the specific method to be based on > Alistair's suggestion > of an additional tag. However, if that gets voted down I would > suggest the exposure > of the ServletContext object within XMLTemplateProcessor so any > named servlet > can be called from a tempate. > > Jon > > > Sean Mehan wrote: > >> Hi. I've been lurking on this one, as I'm sitting in a meeting in >> Hannover. However, tis been an interesting debate. >> >> However, alistair is trying to get a method to work to start >> coupling in >> stuff to bod now. This would lead to mods that Ox and Aggie said they >> would be interested in at least in principle. >> >> Therefore, we need to reach a decision: >> >> 1) Agree a method for code to go in supporting functionality that >> can go >> into HEAD; >> 2) Agree that this will be a UHI only mod. >> >> 1 OR 2. >> >> Thanks, >> Sean >> >> >> >> <quote who="Alistair Young"> >> >>>> so you can call getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, >>>> response ) >>>> >>> but that's where we differ Jon. JSPs are designed to insulate page >>> developers from code like that. That's what taglibs are for. That's >>> why I suggested a new tag. That's why I don't want to go down the >>> servlet route. No-one else does these days to get the type of >>> functionality we want. >>> >>> In light of what Matthew's being working on, it'll be best to wait >>> and see what we can use of that to give us the functionality we >>> need. >>> >>> Alistair >>> >>> >>> On 23 Mar 2006, at 14:57, Jon Maber wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Alistair Young wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> You won't be going near Facility. >>>>>> >>>>> I know Jon but I'll be going somewhere I don't want to go - half >>>>> hidden servlets - that's not what servlets are designed for. >>>>> >>>> It is one of the things that servlets were designed for see the >>>> method; >>>> >>>> >>>> ServletContext.getNamedDispatcher(String name) >>>> >>>> (http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/servlet/ >>>> ServletContext.html) >>>> >>>> >>>>>> I think it can be done without adding any new tag types to the >>>>>> template DTD >>>>>> >>>>> and I think it can ... just different ways of looking at the >>>>> problem. My view is influenced by JSPs/taglibs,your's by bod >>>>> internals. >>>>> >>>> No, I'm not thinking of Bod at all - 'including' is a standard >>>> thing that servlets do. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> out.print( "<P>here's another 400 paragraphs of HTML</P>" ); >>>>>> >>>>> that's how bod works though! >>>>> >>>> It's not how bod templates work. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I don't think I'm getting anywhere now although it's been an >>>>> interesting ride getting there. >>>>> >>>> Just trying to help! I'm not going to say go ahead with your plugin >>>> tag (which I don't personally object to) because I'm not going to >>>> be affected by the consequences - that's down to the other >>>> developers to comment. I'm just suggesting a method they can't >>>> easily object to because it doesn't involve more that a line or two >>>> of changes to the Bodington source code - to make the >>>> ServletContext available to the template so you can call >>>> getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, response ). I >>>> don't think that's a bodge or a workaround - it's basically the >>>> same as what you're proposing but compliant with the servlet spec - >>>> i.e. you could use it perfectly well outside of Bodington. >>>> >>>> Jon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >>>> language >>>> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the >>>> live webcast >>>> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >>>> territory! >>>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >>>> cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Bodington-developers mailing list >>>> Bod...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >>> language >>> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live >>> webcast >>> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >>> territory! >>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >>> cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bodington-developers mailing list >>> Bod...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the > live webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@ou...> - 2006-03-23 15:36:43
|
Sean Mehan wrote: > However, alistair is trying to get a method to work to start coupling in > stuff to bod now. This would lead to mods that Ox and Aggie said they > would be interested in at least in principle. I know you're going to think that I'm just being difficult :-) but what are you saying? We agreed to My Modules or the 'plugin' stuff in principle? > Therefore, we need to reach a decision: > > 1) Agree a method for code to go in supporting functionality that can go > into HEAD; What's that? Did we come to a conclusion? > 2) Agree that this will be a UHI only mod. Meaning it won't go into HEAD? Colin > <quote who="Alistair Young"> > >>>so you can call getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, >>>response ) >> >>but that's where we differ Jon. JSPs are designed to insulate page >>developers from code like that. That's what taglibs are for. That's >>why I suggested a new tag. That's why I don't want to go down the >>servlet route. No-one else does these days to get the type of >>functionality we want. >> >>In light of what Matthew's being working on, it'll be best to wait >>and see what we can use of that to give us the functionality we need. >> >>Alistair >> >> >>On 23 Mar 2006, at 14:57, Jon Maber wrote: >> >> >>>Alistair Young wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>You won't be going near Facility. >>>> >>>>I know Jon but I'll be going somewhere I don't want to go - half >>>>hidden servlets - that's not what servlets are designed for. >>> >>>It is one of the things that servlets were designed for see the >>>method; >>> >>> >>> ServletContext.getNamedDispatcher(String name) >>> >>>(http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/servlet/ >>>ServletContext.html) >>> >>> >>>>>I think it can be done without adding any new tag types to the >>>>>template DTD >>>> >>>>and I think it can ... just different ways of looking at the >>>>problem. My view is influenced by JSPs/taglibs,your's by bod >>>>internals. >>> >>>No, I'm not thinking of Bod at all - 'including' is a standard >>>thing that servlets do. >>> >>> >>>>>out.print( "<P>here's another 400 paragraphs of HTML</P>" ); >>>> >>>>that's how bod works though! >>> >>>It's not how bod templates work. >>> >>> >>>>I don't think I'm getting anywhere now although it's been an >>>>interesting ride getting there. >>> >>>Just trying to help! I'm not going to say go ahead with your plugin >>>tag (which I don't personally object to) because I'm not going to >>>be affected by the consequences - that's down to the other >>>developers to comment. I'm just suggesting a method they can't >>>easily object to because it doesn't involve more that a line or two >>>of changes to the Bodington source code - to make the >>>ServletContext available to the template so you can call >>>getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, response ). I >>>don't think that's a bodge or a workaround - it's basically the >>>same as what you're proposing but compliant with the servlet spec - >>>i.e. you could use it perfectly well outside of Bodington. >>> >>>Jon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------- >>>This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >>>language >>>that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the >>>live webcast >>>and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >>>territory! >>>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >>>cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Bodington-developers mailing list >>>Bod...@li... >>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >>This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >>language >>that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live >>webcast >>and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >>territory! >>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >>_______________________________________________ >>Bodington-developers mailing list >>Bod...@li... >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> > > > -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 15:30:05
|
I vote for 1) within 1) I would be happy for the specific method to be based on Alistair's suggestion of an additional tag. However, if that gets voted down I would suggest the exposure of the ServletContext object within XMLTemplateProcessor so any named servlet can be called from a tempate. Jon Sean Mehan wrote: >Hi. I've been lurking on this one, as I'm sitting in a meeting in >Hannover. However, tis been an interesting debate. > >However, alistair is trying to get a method to work to start coupling in >stuff to bod now. This would lead to mods that Ox and Aggie said they >would be interested in at least in principle. > >Therefore, we need to reach a decision: > >1) Agree a method for code to go in supporting functionality that can go >into HEAD; >2) Agree that this will be a UHI only mod. > >1 OR 2. > >Thanks, >Sean > > > ><quote who="Alistair Young"> > > >>>so you can call getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, >>>response ) >>> >>> >>but that's where we differ Jon. JSPs are designed to insulate page >>developers from code like that. That's what taglibs are for. That's >>why I suggested a new tag. That's why I don't want to go down the >>servlet route. No-one else does these days to get the type of >>functionality we want. >> >>In light of what Matthew's being working on, it'll be best to wait >>and see what we can use of that to give us the functionality we need. >> >>Alistair >> >> >>On 23 Mar 2006, at 14:57, Jon Maber wrote: >> >> >> >>>Alistair Young wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>You won't be going near Facility. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I know Jon but I'll be going somewhere I don't want to go - half >>>>hidden servlets - that's not what servlets are designed for. >>>> >>>> >>>It is one of the things that servlets were designed for see the >>>method; >>> >>> >>> ServletContext.getNamedDispatcher(String name) >>> >>>(http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/servlet/ >>>ServletContext.html) >>> >>> >>> >>>>>I think it can be done without adding any new tag types to the >>>>>template DTD >>>>> >>>>> >>>>and I think it can ... just different ways of looking at the >>>>problem. My view is influenced by JSPs/taglibs,your's by bod >>>>internals. >>>> >>>> >>>No, I'm not thinking of Bod at all - 'including' is a standard >>>thing that servlets do. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>out.print( "<P>here's another 400 paragraphs of HTML</P>" ); >>>>> >>>>> >>>>that's how bod works though! >>>> >>>> >>>It's not how bod templates work. >>> >>> >>> >>>>I don't think I'm getting anywhere now although it's been an >>>>interesting ride getting there. >>>> >>>> >>>Just trying to help! I'm not going to say go ahead with your plugin >>>tag (which I don't personally object to) because I'm not going to >>>be affected by the consequences - that's down to the other >>>developers to comment. I'm just suggesting a method they can't >>>easily object to because it doesn't involve more that a line or two >>>of changes to the Bodington source code - to make the >>>ServletContext available to the template so you can call >>>getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, response ). I >>>don't think that's a bodge or a workaround - it's basically the >>>same as what you're proposing but compliant with the servlet spec - >>>i.e. you could use it perfectly well outside of Bodington. >>> >>>Jon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------- >>>This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >>>language >>>that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the >>>live webcast >>>and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >>>territory! >>>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >>>cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Bodington-developers mailing list >>>Bod...@li... >>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >>> >>> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >>This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >>language >>that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live >>webcast >>and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >>territory! >>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >>_______________________________________________ >>Bodington-developers mailing list >>Bod...@li... >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> >> >> > > > > |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 15:24:21
|
Hi. I've been lurking on this one, as I'm sitting in a meeting in Hannover. However, tis been an interesting debate. However, alistair is trying to get a method to work to start coupling in stuff to bod now. This would lead to mods that Ox and Aggie said they would be interested in at least in principle. Therefore, we need to reach a decision: 1) Agree a method for code to go in supporting functionality that can go into HEAD; 2) Agree that this will be a UHI only mod. 1 OR 2. Thanks, Sean <quote who=3D"Alistair Young"> >> so you can call getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, >> response ) > but that's where we differ Jon. JSPs are designed to insulate page > developers from code like that. That's what taglibs are for. That's > why I suggested a new tag. That's why I don't want to go down the > servlet route. No-one else does these days to get the type of > functionality we want. > > In light of what Matthew's being working on, it'll be best to wait > and see what we can use of that to give us the functionality we need. > > Alistair > > > On 23 Mar 2006, at 14:57, Jon Maber wrote: > >> Alistair Young wrote: >> >>>> You won't be going near Facility. >>> >>> I know Jon but I'll be going somewhere I don't want to go - half >>> hidden servlets - that's not what servlets are designed for. >> >> It is one of the things that servlets were designed for see the >> method; >> >> >> ServletContext.getNamedDispatcher(String name) >> >> (http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/servlet/ >> ServletContext.html) >> >>> >>>> I think it can be done without adding any new tag types to the >>>> template DTD >>> >>> and I think it can ... just different ways of looking at the >>> problem. My view is influenced by JSPs/taglibs,your's by bod >>> internals. >> >> No, I'm not thinking of Bod at all - 'including' is a standard >> thing that servlets do. >> >>> >>>> out.print( "<P>here's another 400 paragraphs of HTML</P>" ); >>> >>> that's how bod works though! >> >> It's not how bod templates work. >> >>> I don't think I'm getting anywhere now although it's been an >>> interesting ride getting there. >> >> Just trying to help! I'm not going to say go ahead with your plugin >> tag (which I don't personally object to) because I'm not going to >> be affected by the consequences - that's down to the other >> developers to comment. I'm just suggesting a method they can't >> easily object to because it doesn't involve more that a line or two >> of changes to the Bodington source code - to make the >> ServletContext available to the template so you can call >> getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, response ). I >> don't think that's a bodge or a workaround - it's basically the >> same as what you're proposing but compliant with the servlet spec - >> i.e. you could use it perfectly well outside of Bodington. >> >> Jon >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >> language >> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the >> live webcast >> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >> territory! >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >> cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D110944&bid=3D241720&dat=3D121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live > webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D110944&bid=3D241720&dat= =3D121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > --=20 Sean Mehan Head of e-Frameworks Learning and Information Services UHI |
|
From: Matthew B. <mat...@ou...> - 2006-03-23 15:22:08
|
Sean Mehan wrote: >>>Maybe we need a summit, all devs, consultants and interested parties. >> >>hmmm... beer.... >> > > how about a dram or two, matthew!-) I'll bring the drink if someone else can bring the charcoal ;-) -- -- Matthew Buckett, VLE Developer -- Learning Technologies Group, Oxford University Computing Services -- Tel: +44 (0)1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/ |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 15:17:55
|
>> Maybe we need a summit, all devs, consultants and interested parties. > > hmmm... beer.... > how about a dram or two, matthew!-) s > -- > -- Matthew Buckett, VLE Developer > -- Learning Technologies Group, Oxford University Computing Services > -- Tel: +44 (0)1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live > webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D110944&bid=3D241720&dat= =3D121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > --=20 Sean Mehan Head of e-Frameworks Learning and Information Services UHI |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 15:14:12
|
I like dots and parentheses and you like angle brackets, I say tomato and you say tomato, Tomato, tomato, <, (), Let's call the whole thing off. ;o) Alistair Young wrote: >> so you can call getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, >> response ) > > but that's where we differ Jon. JSPs are designed to insulate page > developers from code like that. That's what taglibs are for. That's > why I suggested a new tag. That's why I don't want to go down the > servlet route. No-one else does these days to get the type of > functionality we want. > > In light of what Matthew's being working on, it'll be best to wait > and see what we can use of that to give us the functionality we need. > > Alistair > > > On 23 Mar 2006, at 14:57, Jon Maber wrote: > >> Alistair Young wrote: >> >>>> You won't be going near Facility. >>> >>> >>> I know Jon but I'll be going somewhere I don't want to go - half >>> hidden servlets - that's not what servlets are designed for. >> >> >> It is one of the things that servlets were designed for see the method; >> >> >> ServletContext.getNamedDispatcher(String name) >> >> (http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/servlet/ >> ServletContext.html) >> >>> >>>> I think it can be done without adding any new tag types to the >>>> template DTD >>> >>> >>> and I think it can ... just different ways of looking at the >>> problem. My view is influenced by JSPs/taglibs,your's by bod >>> internals. >> >> >> No, I'm not thinking of Bod at all - 'including' is a standard thing >> that servlets do. >> >>> >>>> out.print( "<P>here's another 400 paragraphs of HTML</P>" ); >>> >>> >>> that's how bod works though! >> >> >> It's not how bod templates work. >> >>> I don't think I'm getting anywhere now although it's been an >>> interesting ride getting there. >> >> >> Just trying to help! I'm not going to say go ahead with your plugin >> tag (which I don't personally object to) because I'm not going to be >> affected by the consequences - that's down to the other developers >> to comment. I'm just suggesting a method they can't easily object >> to because it doesn't involve more that a line or two of changes to >> the Bodington source code - to make the ServletContext available to >> the template so you can call getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" >> ).include( request, response ). I don't think that's a bodge or a >> workaround - it's basically the same as what you're proposing but >> compliant with the servlet spec - i.e. you could use it perfectly >> well outside of Bodington. >> >> Jon >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >> language >> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live >> webcast >> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >> territory! >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >> cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live > webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 15:07:36
|
> so you can call getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, > response ) but that's where we differ Jon. JSPs are designed to insulate page developers from code like that. That's what taglibs are for. That's why I suggested a new tag. That's why I don't want to go down the servlet route. No-one else does these days to get the type of functionality we want. In light of what Matthew's being working on, it'll be best to wait and see what we can use of that to give us the functionality we need. Alistair On 23 Mar 2006, at 14:57, Jon Maber wrote: > Alistair Young wrote: > >>> You won't be going near Facility. >> >> I know Jon but I'll be going somewhere I don't want to go - half >> hidden servlets - that's not what servlets are designed for. > > It is one of the things that servlets were designed for see the > method; > > > ServletContext.getNamedDispatcher(String name) > > (http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/servlet/ > ServletContext.html) > >> >>> I think it can be done without adding any new tag types to the >>> template DTD >> >> and I think it can ... just different ways of looking at the >> problem. My view is influenced by JSPs/taglibs,your's by bod >> internals. > > No, I'm not thinking of Bod at all - 'including' is a standard > thing that servlets do. > >> >>> out.print( "<P>here's another 400 paragraphs of HTML</P>" ); >> >> that's how bod works though! > > It's not how bod templates work. > >> I don't think I'm getting anywhere now although it's been an >> interesting ride getting there. > > Just trying to help! I'm not going to say go ahead with your plugin > tag (which I don't personally object to) because I'm not going to > be affected by the consequences - that's down to the other > developers to comment. I'm just suggesting a method they can't > easily object to because it doesn't involve more that a line or two > of changes to the Bodington source code - to make the > ServletContext available to the template so you can call > getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request, response ). I > don't think that's a bodge or a workaround - it's basically the > same as what you're proposing but compliant with the servlet spec - > i.e. you could use it perfectly well outside of Bodington. > > Jon > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the > live webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 14:58:06
|
Alistair Young wrote:
>> You won't be going near Facility.
>
> I know Jon but I'll be going somewhere I don't want to go - half
> hidden servlets - that's not what servlets are designed for.
It is one of the things that servlets were designed for see the method;
ServletContext.getNamedDispatcher(String name)
(http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/servlet/ServletContext.html)
>
>> I think it can be done without adding any new tag types to the
>> template DTD
>
> and I think it can ... just different ways of looking at the problem.
> My view is influenced by JSPs/taglibs,your's by bod internals.
No, I'm not thinking of Bod at all - 'including' is a standard thing
that servlets do.
>
>> out.print( "<P>here's another 400 paragraphs of HTML</P>" );
>
> that's how bod works though!
It's not how bod templates work.
> I don't think I'm getting anywhere now although it's been an
> interesting ride getting there.
Just trying to help! I'm not going to say go ahead with your plugin tag
(which I don't personally object to) because I'm not going to be
affected by the consequences - that's down to the other developers to
comment. I'm just suggesting a method they can't easily object to
because it doesn't involve more that a line or two of changes to the
Bodington source code - to make the ServletContext available to the
template so you can call getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include(
request, response ). I don't think that's a bodge or a workaround -
it's basically the same as what you're proposing but compliant with the
servlet spec - i.e. you could use it perfectly well outside of Bodington.
Jon
|
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 14:43:37
|
Matthew Buckett wrote: >Jon Maber wrote: > > >>I'm one step removed from the development work so I won't comment on the >>summit idea - I'll leave that to those of you who are in the thick of it. >> >>However, I would suggest that large scale redesigning would involve a >>lot of money and a lot of time and it would be very important not to let >>that work result in less support for the current version during the >>development process. >> >> > >I'm not is favour of stopping supporting the existing code as we have so >much functionality already written/working/debugged. I just think that >for new features it would make sense to write them in a more future >proofed manner. > > > I'm in agreement - the HTML/HTTP side of Bodington is in great need of a serious update but it will need funding because without that you will only get it done by diverting effort from other activities - like documentation, bug fixing etc. and nobody wants that. |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 14:27:57
|
> I've been cobbling for a year and have had enough here here and here endeth the lesson. See you all in a pub sometime :) Alistair On 23 Mar 2006, at 14:22, Matthew Buckett wrote: > Alistair Young wrote: >>> Comments >> >> pretty impressive work Matthew but I'll bet you'd rather design >> it from >> the ground up. > > It's not that much work. The main thing was getting the mapping from > Facilities/Resources to another framework going. But this isn't quite > sorted. Initially I wanted to move most of the work of BuildingServlet > into a filter and then use the servlet mappings to decide which > servlet > to map the request to but the servlet spec isn't flexible enough so > the > mapping has to be done in BuildingServer and then dispatched. > >> I can see why My Modules can't go in to 2.8! > > I'm not suggesting this should go in either. I'd just been mentioning > this stuff and though I should expand on it. > >> Is it worth building on what Matthew has done to start designing >> bod as >> a modern application? > > If we throw it out that's fine, but I think we need to seriously think > about this stuff. I've being working on it as I worked on MyWeblearn > with the hope of ironing out bugs in it. > >> We need functionality now but we can't get it cleanly - we can either >> keep cobbling it together with Facility but maybe it's time we stood >> back, took stock and decided what we really want out of bod. > > I've been cobbling for a year and have had enough. > >> Maybe we need a summit, all devs, consultants and interested parties. > > hmmm... beer.... > > -- > -- Matthew Buckett, VLE Developer > -- Learning Technologies Group, Oxford University Computing Services > -- Tel: +44 (0)1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the > live webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Matthew B. <mat...@ou...> - 2006-03-23 14:27:34
|
Jon Maber wrote: > I'm one step removed from the development work so I won't comment on the > summit idea - I'll leave that to those of you who are in the thick of it. > > However, I would suggest that large scale redesigning would involve a > lot of money and a lot of time and it would be very important not to let > that work result in less support for the current version during the > development process. I'm not is favour of stopping supporting the existing code as we have so much functionality already written/working/debugged. I just think that for new features it would make sense to write them in a more future proofed manner. -- -- Matthew Buckett, VLE Developer -- Learning Technologies Group, Oxford University Computing Services -- Tel: +44 (0)1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/ |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 14:24:39
|
> You won't be going near Facility. I know Jon but I'll be going somewhere I don't want to go - half hidden servlets - that's not what servlets are designed for. > I think it can be done without adding any new tag types to the > template DTD and I think it can ... just different ways of looking at the problem. My view is influenced by JSPs/taglibs,your's by bod internals. > out.print( "<P>here's another 400 paragraphs of HTML</P>" ); that's how bod works though! I don't think I'm getting anywhere now although it's been an interesting ride getting there. Alistair On 23 Mar 2006, at 14:13, Jon Maber wrote: > Alistair Young wrote: > >>> If Bodington supports servlet includes >> >> that's a function of the servlet container, not bod. I see what >> you're saying Jon but I just feel I'm being sucked back into bod >> due to the way it works. > > No, I'm trying to help you do your own thing from a Bodington > template. Honest! You won't be going near Facility. > You won't even need Facility to help you reference your code. > >> The cleanest way to implement a sort of taglib - coz that's what >> you're limited to with the current architecture - loads of "sort >> ofs" - would be to handle <plugin ... /> tags in a template. Just >> as I added <localise ... /> tags. > > I think it can be done without adding any new tag types to the > template DTD. > >> JSP are compiled to servlets >> that's just a by product of the spec - no-one uses JSPs as >> servlets. JSPs were invented to get away from servlets. > > JSP was invented to avoid thousands of lines of code like this one; > out.print( "<P>here's another 400 paragraphs of HTML</P>" ); > and to provide non-programmers with a less scary route into > programming. > > Jon > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the > live webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Matthew B. <mat...@ou...> - 2006-03-23 14:22:43
|
Alistair Young wrote: >> Comments > > pretty impressive work Matthew but I'll bet you'd rather design it from > the ground up. It's not that much work. The main thing was getting the mapping from Facilities/Resources to another framework going. But this isn't quite sorted. Initially I wanted to move most of the work of BuildingServlet into a filter and then use the servlet mappings to decide which servlet to map the request to but the servlet spec isn't flexible enough so the mapping has to be done in BuildingServer and then dispatched. > I can see why My Modules can't go in to 2.8! I'm not suggesting this should go in either. I'd just been mentioning this stuff and though I should expand on it. > Is it worth building on what Matthew has done to start designing bod as > a modern application? If we throw it out that's fine, but I think we need to seriously think about this stuff. I've being working on it as I worked on MyWeblearn with the hope of ironing out bugs in it. > We need functionality now but we can't get it cleanly - we can either > keep cobbling it together with Facility but maybe it's time we stood > back, took stock and decided what we really want out of bod. I've been cobbling for a year and have had enough. > Maybe we need a summit, all devs, consultants and interested parties. hmmm... beer.... -- -- Matthew Buckett, VLE Developer -- Learning Technologies Group, Oxford University Computing Services -- Tel: +44 (0)1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/ |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 14:22:11
|
I'm one step removed from the development work so I won't comment on the summit idea - I'll leave that to those of you who are in the thick of it. However, I would suggest that large scale redesigning would involve a lot of money and a lot of time and it would be very important not to let that work result in less support for the current version during the development process. Jon Alistair Young wrote: >> Comments > > pretty impressive work Matthew but I'll bet you'd rather design it > from the ground up. > > I can see why My Modules can't go in to 2.8! > > Is it worth building on what Matthew has done to start designing bod > as a modern application? > > We need functionality now but we can't get it cleanly - we can either > keep cobbling it together with Facility but maybe it's time we stood > back, took stock and decided what we really want out of bod. > > Maybe we need a summit, all devs, consultants and interested parties. > > Where do we want to go? > > Alistair > > > On 23 Mar 2006, at 13:57, Matthew Buckett wrote: > >> Jon Maber wrote: >> >>> Alexis O'Connor wrote: >>> >>>> Jon Maber wrote: >>>> >>>>> Peter Crowther wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> From: Jon Maber >>>>>>> By the way - what is a JSP page? Yes, you got it - a servlet. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you are using the term 'servlet' in a remarkably >>>>>> idiosyncratic way >>>>>> that will not aid communication with the other software >>>>>> developers on >>>>>> this list. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> JSPs are compiled to Servlet classes. Ie. they build on a well >>>>> established spec. for taking a request and producing a response. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hmmm... so why don't *we* just use JSPs? >>> >>> >>> >>> Historically because Bodington predates JSP. Theoretically - no good >>> reason not to use them. Practically, quite a lot of careful thought >>> would need to go into it. >>> >>> Basically I'd be very much in favour of JSPs in place of Bodington >>> templates. >> >> >> I currently have a new reserved prefix (bs_spring) that gets handled by >> BuildingServlet (just as bs_template does) and then rather than >> BuildingServlet handing off control to the template the request gets >> forwarded to the spring dispatch servlet which examines the request and >> looks for the Facility associated with the request and the page name. >> It then uses this information to decided which controller to route the >> request to as a result. >> >> The controller is just a normal SpringMVC controller (similar to an >> struts Action). This controller then builds a Model and decides which >> view to use. The dispatch servlet then gets controll back and then >> hands >> off control to the view. >> >> Currently I use JSPs for views with template taglibs and spring >> taglibs, >> it is only here that the HTML is outputted. >> >> Stuff that isn't working is commons-validation and documentation on how >> to write new pages. >> >> Facilities are only used for deciding which controller to user but no >> Facility code is called. Database access still goes through >> BuildingSessions. >> >> A snapshot of my current state of work is at: >> >> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~buckett/weblearn-spring.tgz >> >> Comments. >> >> -- >> -- Matthew Buckett, VLE Developer >> -- Learning Technologies Group, Oxford University Computing Services >> -- Tel: +44 (0)1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/ >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >> language >> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live >> webcast >> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >> territory! >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >> cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live > webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 14:14:00
|
Alistair Young wrote: >> If Bodington supports servlet includes > > that's a function of the servlet container, not bod. I see what > you're saying Jon but I just feel I'm being sucked back into bod due > to the way it works. No, I'm trying to help you do your own thing from a Bodington template. Honest! You won't be going near Facility. You won't even need Facility to help you reference your code. > The cleanest way to implement a sort of taglib - coz that's what > you're limited to with the current architecture - loads of "sort ofs" > - would be to handle <plugin ... /> tags in a template. Just as I > added <localise ... /> tags. I think it can be done without adding any new tag types to the template DTD. > JSP are compiled to servlets > that's just a by product of the spec - no-one uses JSPs as servlets. > JSPs were invented to get away from servlets. JSP was invented to avoid thousands of lines of code like this one; out.print( "<P>here's another 400 paragraphs of HTML</P>" ); and to provide non-programmers with a less scary route into programming. Jon |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 14:08:44
|
> Comments pretty impressive work Matthew but I'll bet you'd rather design it from the ground up. I can see why My Modules can't go in to 2.8! Is it worth building on what Matthew has done to start designing bod as a modern application? We need functionality now but we can't get it cleanly - we can either keep cobbling it together with Facility but maybe it's time we stood back, took stock and decided what we really want out of bod. Maybe we need a summit, all devs, consultants and interested parties. Where do we want to go? Alistair On 23 Mar 2006, at 13:57, Matthew Buckett wrote: > Jon Maber wrote: >> Alexis O'Connor wrote: >> >>> Jon Maber wrote: >>> >>>> Peter Crowther wrote: >>>> >>>>>> From: Jon Maber >>>>>> By the way - what is a JSP page? Yes, you got it - a servlet. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then you are using the term 'servlet' in a remarkably >>>>> idiosyncratic way >>>>> that will not aid communication with the other software >>>>> developers on >>>>> this list. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> JSPs are compiled to Servlet classes. Ie. they build on a well >>>> established spec. for taking a request and producing a response. >>>> >>> >>> Hmmm... so why don't *we* just use JSPs? >> >> >> Historically because Bodington predates JSP. Theoretically - no >> good >> reason not to use them. Practically, quite a lot of careful thought >> would need to go into it. >> >> Basically I'd be very much in favour of JSPs in place of Bodington >> templates. > > I currently have a new reserved prefix (bs_spring) that gets > handled by > BuildingServlet (just as bs_template does) and then rather than > BuildingServlet handing off control to the template the request gets > forwarded to the spring dispatch servlet which examines the request > and > looks for the Facility associated with the request and the page name. > It then uses this information to decided which controller to route the > request to as a result. > > The controller is just a normal SpringMVC controller (similar to an > struts Action). This controller then builds a Model and decides which > view to use. The dispatch servlet then gets controll back and then > hands > off control to the view. > > Currently I use JSPs for views with template taglibs and spring > taglibs, > it is only here that the HTML is outputted. > > Stuff that isn't working is commons-validation and documentation on > how > to write new pages. > > Facilities are only used for deciding which controller to user but no > Facility code is called. Database access still goes through > BuildingSessions. > > A snapshot of my current state of work is at: > > http://users.ox.ac.uk/~buckett/weblearn-spring.tgz > > Comments. > > -- > -- Matthew Buckett, VLE Developer > -- Learning Technologies Group, Oxford University Computing Services > -- Tel: +44 (0)1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the > live webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 14:02:55
|
Peter Crowther wrote: >>From: Jon Maber >>It is a servlet in the sense that it is invoked, gets >>information from a >>request object and outputs HTML via a response object. The >>only unusual >>feature is that it never outputs a whole page of HTML and is >>only used to insert output in the output of another servlet. >> >> > >I'd call it a portlet. Are we starting to reinvent JSR168 here? > > - Peter > > Portlets solve a problem which is much more tricky than Alistair's application. You have a page that contains multiple forms and links which have been output by different modules. You want the action property of every form to reference the same page that contains the form so that just one corner of the page reacts to the user input. None of the modules that are used to build the page knows about the others. Nearly all of this could be implemented using one JSP page and a Servlet for each module. However the form IDs, input field IDs and links could clash with those of the other servlets. Basically a Portlet is a Servlet which is happy for its form output tags to be rewritten and its form input to be transformed. To do this it needs to add HTML elements and attributes to its output according to rules. Jon |
|
From: Matthew B. <mat...@ou...> - 2006-03-23 13:57:29
|
Jon Maber wrote: > Alexis O'Connor wrote: > >> Jon Maber wrote: >> >>> Peter Crowther wrote: >>> >>>>> From: Jon Maber >>>>> By the way - what is a JSP page? Yes, you got it - a servlet. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Then you are using the term 'servlet' in a remarkably idiosyncratic way >>>> that will not aid communication with the other software developers on >>>> this list. >>>> >>>> >>> JSPs are compiled to Servlet classes. Ie. they build on a well >>> established spec. for taking a request and producing a response. >>> >> >> Hmmm... so why don't *we* just use JSPs? > > > Historically because Bodington predates JSP. Theoretically - no good > reason not to use them. Practically, quite a lot of careful thought > would need to go into it. > > Basically I'd be very much in favour of JSPs in place of Bodington > templates. I currently have a new reserved prefix (bs_spring) that gets handled by BuildingServlet (just as bs_template does) and then rather than BuildingServlet handing off control to the template the request gets forwarded to the spring dispatch servlet which examines the request and looks for the Facility associated with the request and the page name. It then uses this information to decided which controller to route the request to as a result. The controller is just a normal SpringMVC controller (similar to an struts Action). This controller then builds a Model and decides which view to use. The dispatch servlet then gets controll back and then hands off control to the view. Currently I use JSPs for views with template taglibs and spring taglibs, it is only here that the HTML is outputted. Stuff that isn't working is commons-validation and documentation on how to write new pages. Facilities are only used for deciding which controller to user but no Facility code is called. Database access still goes through BuildingSessions. A snapshot of my current state of work is at: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~buckett/weblearn-spring.tgz Comments. -- -- Matthew Buckett, VLE Developer -- Learning Technologies Group, Oxford University Computing Services -- Tel: +44 (0)1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/ |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 13:56:15
|
> If Bodington supports servlet includes that's a function of the servlet container, not bod. I see what you're saying Jon but I just feel I'm being sucked back into bod due to the way it works. The cleanest way to implement a sort of taglib - coz that's what you're limited to with the current architecture - loads of "sort ofs" - would be to handle <plugin ... /> tags in a template. Just as I added <localise ... /> tags. > JSP are compiled to servlets that's just a by product of the spec - no-one uses JSPs as servlets. JSPs were invented to get away from servlets. Alistair On 23 Mar 2006, at 13:45, Jon Maber wrote: > Quite - the best solution for you would be JSP support in Bodington > so you can use your taglibs. However, that isn't currently > available so what would be a reasonable solution? Personally I > think a solution based on a specification that IS supported by > Bodington would be quite a good idea AND it would pave the way for > what you really want. > > If Bodington supports servlet includes that would be the first step > for supporting JSP because as I said before JSP are compiled to > servlets. If a general case servlet works in Bodington then your > half way to a JSP page working in Bodington. > > Jon > > > Alistair Young wrote: > >>> a servlet >> >> the end result is a "servlet" - the jsp is made for the purpose >> though, rather than cobbling together the same functionalty from >> a real servlet, i.e. building one then restricting it to >> everything bar a template. >> >> It's like implementing OOP in C. Why bother - just use C++. >> >> If I wanted this functionality in a normal webapp, I'd use >> taglibs. (looks at watch, checks which year it is, yes, it >> *really* is 2006) ;) >> >> Alistair >> >> >> On 23 Mar 2006, at 13:23, Jon Maber wrote: >> >>> Alistair Young wrote: >>> >>>> I'm still not convinced though. My Modules is just like a >>>> private JSP that lives in WEB-INF. It can't be accessed via a >>>> browser. Only a template can access it. >>> >>> >>> By the way - what is a JSP page? Yes, you got it - a servlet. >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking >>> scripting language >>> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the >>> live webcast >>> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >>> territory! >>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >>> cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bodington-developers mailing list >>> Bod...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >> language >> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the >> live webcast >> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >> territory! >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >> cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the > live webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? > cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Andrew B. <a.g...@le...> - 2006-03-23 13:52:46
|
fartlet -----Original Message----- From: bod...@li... [mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of Alistair Young Sent: 23 March 2006 13:33 To: bod...@li... Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] Plugin interface jeez, 4 and counting: plugin,facility,servlet,portlet - any more? prize for the most =20 inventive ;) Alistair On 23 Mar 2006, at 13:23, Peter Crowther wrote: >> From: Jon Maber >> It is a servlet in the sense that it is invoked, gets >> information from a >> request object and outputs HTML via a response object. The >> only unusual >> feature is that it never outputs a whole page of HTML and is >> only used to insert output in the output of another servlet. > > I'd call it a portlet. Are we starting to reinvent JSR168 here? > > - Peter > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting =20 > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the =20 > live webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding =20 > territory! > = http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=110944&bid$1720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting = language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live = webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding = territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dk&kid=110944&bid$1720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Bodington-developers mailing list Bod...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 13:45:11
|
Quite - the best solution for you would be JSP support in Bodington so you can use your taglibs. However, that isn't currently available so what would be a reasonable solution? Personally I think a solution based on a specification that IS supported by Bodington would be quite a good idea AND it would pave the way for what you really want. If Bodington supports servlet includes that would be the first step for supporting JSP because as I said before JSP are compiled to servlets. If a general case servlet works in Bodington then your half way to a JSP page working in Bodington. Jon Alistair Young wrote: >> a servlet > > the end result is a "servlet" - the jsp is made for the purpose > though, rather than cobbling together the same functionalty from a > real servlet, i.e. building one then restricting it to everything bar > a template. > > It's like implementing OOP in C. Why bother - just use C++. > > If I wanted this functionality in a normal webapp, I'd use taglibs. > (looks at watch, checks which year it is, yes, it *really* is 2006) ;) > > Alistair > > > On 23 Mar 2006, at 13:23, Jon Maber wrote: > >> Alistair Young wrote: >> >>> I'm still not convinced though. My Modules is just like a private >>> JSP that lives in WEB-INF. It can't be accessed via a browser. >>> Only a template can access it. >> >> >> By the way - what is a JSP page? Yes, you got it - a servlet. >> >> Jon >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting >> language >> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live >> webcast >> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding >> territory! >> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? >> cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live > webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
19 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
