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: Adam M. <ada...@co...> - 2006-03-23 13:44:23
|
Here here! adam In message <498...@po...= > bod...@li... writes: > This is *really* important. Is it correct in head and ready to stay in = the > 2.8 branch? Has anyone else tested it? How does it work? Is there any > documentation? How does it configure? >=20 > We need this to work and it would be *much* better if it was in 2.8 rat= her > than 2.10!!!!! >=20 >=20 > HELP >=20 > s >=20 >=20 > <quote who=3D"Atif Suleman"> > > > >> Aggie/Atif - is bod as sp ready to go for 2.8? Just wondering if you > >> want to release it for 2.8. > > > > Yes. just small fix for [zone].allusers to add. Other than the small = fix > > it's ready to Rock & Roll for 2.8 > > > >> Alistair (resting from ranting against Facility) > > > > cool. > > > > Ta > > Atif. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > 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&d= at=3D121642 > > _______________________________________________ > > Bodington-developers mailing list > > Bod...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Sean Mehan > Head of e-Frameworks > Learning and Information Services > UHI >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting lang= uage > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live we= bcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territ= ory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=110944&bid$1720&dat=12164= 2 > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >=20 --=20 -- Dr AC Marshall (Bodington developer) OUCS, 13, Banbury Rd. Oxford. OX2 6N= N Cheese of the month: Smoked Wensleydale |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 13:39:47
|
> Bodington predates JSP just as walking predates flight ... ;) Alistair On 23 Mar 2006, at 13:36, 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. > > 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: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 13:36:18
|
> 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 |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 13:36:15
|
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. Jon |
|
From: Matthew B. <mat...@ou...> - 2006-03-23 13:35:27
|
Jon Maber wrote: > > 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 >> >> > No reinvention at all! That's my point. > Servlets have been able to call other servlets from way back and I think > it's best to use something that is established functionality of the spec. RequestDispatcher.include() unless used carefully can lead to very fragile and difficult to follow routes through the code. -- -- Matthew Buckett, VLE Developer -- Learning Technologies Group, Oxford University Computing Services -- Tel: +44 (0)1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/ |
|
From: Matthew B. <mat...@ou...> - 2006-03-23 13:32:48
|
Jon Maber wrote: > Alistair Young wrote: >> if it can't then I'd argue not to bother implementing it as we're >> back to the same thing. The plugin is neither a facility nor a servlet. > > > 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. > >> However, the plugin can't be accessed outwith it's context - it means >> nothing until it's invoked by a template and it can get access to >> current user environment. > > > It _does_ have context. The request object provides the link to the user > environment - since it is the request object built by the Bodington > system. Also, the BuldingContext is available since it is stored against > the thread ID and the thread that calls your *servlet* is the same > thread that called the template. Also as you normally pass through the request object it should have all the stuff setup by BuildingServlet although you will need to cast it back to a Bodington request. > >> My only concern is exposing functionality to the world - that's a lot >> of security updates to maintain as every plugin is accessible via >> it's servlet. Each parallel servlet will have access to the bod >> environment but the difference will be they're publicly accessible >> and attackable. A plugin isn't. > > The servlet does _not_ need to be exposed on its own URL. The servlet > knows if it is being called directly or via an include and can refuse to > deliver content. It can even tell if the include is coming from > Bodington or from another servlet. > >> I don't think you can get a "private" servlet but I haven't looked >> into it enough. > > Yes you can! If you 'include' a servlet only the security constraints of > the URL that was originally accessed apply. So, you simply put your > servlet in the web app with a 'noone can access ever' constraint. You just need to define it by name but place no mappings on the servlet and that way you can only access it through the RequestDispatcher.include() for JSPs you just dump them inside WEB-INF/ as then only included/forwarded requests can get at them. -- -- 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 13:32:44
|
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 |
|
From: Alexis O'C. <ale...@ou...> - 2006-03-23 13:32:08
|
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? Alexis |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 13:28:59
|
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. |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 13:27:37
|
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 > > No reinvention at all! That's my point. Servlets have been able to call other servlets from way back and I think it's best to use something that is established functionality of the spec. |
|
From: Peter C. <Pet...@me...> - 2006-03-23 13:25:11
|
> 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. - Peter |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 13:23:35
|
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 |
|
From: Peter C. <Pet...@me...> - 2006-03-23 13:23:20
|
> From: Jon Maber > It is a servlet in the sense that it is invoked, gets=20 > information from a=20 > request object and outputs HTML via a response object. The=20 > only unusual=20 > feature is that it never outputs a whole page of HTML and is=20 > 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 |
|
From: Jon M. <jo...@te...> - 2006-03-23 13:20:21
|
Alistair Young wrote: > That's interesting Jon. I take you mean http://www.clan.uhi.ac.uk/ > mymodules No, I'd suggest a Servlet made specifically for including HTML into another servlet's output. > Can you provide an exmaple of how a template would do > RequestDispatcher.include() ? No, but I'm sure minimal alteration to the Template code would be needed. > if it can't then I'd argue not to bother implementing it as we're > back to the same thing. The plugin is neither a facility nor a servlet. 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. > However, the plugin can't be accessed outwith it's context - it means > nothing until it's invoked by a template and it can get access to > current user environment. It _does_ have context. The request object provides the link to the user environment - since it is the request object built by the Bodington system. Also, the BuldingContext is available since it is stored against the thread ID and the thread that calls your *servlet* is the same thread that called the template. > My only concern is exposing functionality to the world - that's a lot > of security updates to maintain as every plugin is accessible via > it's servlet. Each parallel servlet will have access to the bod > environment but the difference will be they're publicly accessible > and attackable. A plugin isn't. The servlet does _not_ need to be exposed on its own URL. The servlet knows if it is being called directly or via an include and can refuse to deliver content. It can even tell if the include is coming from Bodington or from another servlet. > I don't think you can get a "private" servlet but I haven't looked > into it enough. Yes you can! If you 'include' a servlet only the security constraints of the URL that was originally accessed apply. So, you simply put your servlet in the web app with a 'noone can access ever' constraint. > I'm resisting labelling it anything other than a plugin - coz that's > what it is. A rose would smell as sweet.... Jon P.S. IT'S A SERVLET! |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 13:06:24
|
That's interesting Jon. I take you mean http://www.clan.uhi.ac.uk/ mymodules Can you provide an exmaple of how a template would do RequestDispatcher.include() ? if it can't then I'd argue not to bother implementing it as we're back to the same thing. The plugin is neither a facility nor a servlet. It's a good idea for static output though, i.e. a news feed maybe and it's worth looking into. Be good for a /status servlet. However, the plugin can't be accessed outwith it's context - it means nothing until it's invoked by a template and it can get access to current user environment. Worth looking into though, thanks for the pointer. My only concern is exposing functionality to the world - that's a lot of security updates to maintain as every plugin is accessible via it's servlet. Each parallel servlet will have access to the bod environment but the difference will be they're publicly accessible and attackable. A plugin isn't. 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. I don't think you can get a "private" servlet but I haven't looked into it enough. I'm resisting labelling it anything other than a plugin - coz that's what it is. Interesting discussions, keep 'em coming :) Alistair On 23 Mar 2006, at 12:47, Jon Maber wrote: > Alistair, > > Basically your plugin is a servlet. You could implement it as a > subclass of HttpServlet, deploy it by referencing the class in the > web app config. file and access it from the Bodington template as a > servlet include. You could even update the class and the standard > Tomcat class loader will reload and instantiate the new version. If > there is something about the templates that stops the call to > "include" that could be easily fixed and should be fixed because > calling installed servlets is a very obvious thing that people will > want to do. > > In the future people might want runtime installable modules that > really interact with Bodington and that would require a more > involved solution. > > This is my recommendation as an unpaid consultant - if you don't > like it pay me to give you the answer you want ;-) > > Jon > > > Alistair Young wrote: > >>> Instantiation of the Plugin >> >> at the moment, one instance per template with shared functionality >> in that instance. It's in it's infancy just now so that's likely >> to change. >> >>> Initialisation >> >> at first instantiation >> >>> Calls out from plugin >> >> uses some bod methods to get current user > > >> >>> Calls into the plugin >>> Does your plugin have multiple functionality? >> >> no >> >>> Does it use parameters to its method calls? >> >> no >> >> It's functionality is implied by it's interface contract - it's >> an HTMLPlugin so that's all it does, outputs HTML. Facility just >> calls it's run() method. >> >> It connects to a database to get the info to generate the HTML. >> >> Alistair >> >> On 23 Mar 2006, at 12:11, Jon Maber wrote: >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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 12:47:18
|
Alistair, Basically your plugin is a servlet. You could implement it as a subclass of HttpServlet, deploy it by referencing the class in the web app config. file and access it from the Bodington template as a servlet include. You could even update the class and the standard Tomcat class loader will reload and instantiate the new version. If there is something about the templates that stops the call to "include" that could be easily fixed and should be fixed because calling installed servlets is a very obvious thing that people will want to do. In the future people might want runtime installable modules that really interact with Bodington and that would require a more involved solution. This is my recommendation as an unpaid consultant - if you don't like it pay me to give you the answer you want ;-) Jon Alistair Young wrote: >> Instantiation of the Plugin > > at the moment, one instance per template with shared functionality in > that instance. It's in it's infancy just now so that's likely to change. > >> Initialisation > > at first instantiation > >> Calls out from plugin > > uses some bod methods to get current user > >> Calls into the plugin >> Does your plugin have multiple functionality? > > no > >> Does it use parameters to its method calls? > > no > > It's functionality is implied by it's interface contract - it's an > HTMLPlugin so that's all it does, outputs HTML. Facility just calls > it's run() method. > > It connects to a database to get the info to generate the HTML. > > Alistair > > On 23 Mar 2006, at 12:11, Jon Maber wrote: > |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 12:26:31
|
> Instantiation of the Plugin at the moment, one instance per template with shared functionality in that instance. It's in it's infancy just now so that's likely to change. > Initialisation at first instantiation > Calls out from plugin uses some bod methods to get current user > Calls into the plugin > Does your plugin have multiple functionality? no > Does it use parameters to its method calls? no It's functionality is implied by it's interface contract - it's an HTMLPlugin so that's all it does, outputs HTML. Facility just calls it's run() method. It connects to a database to get the info to generate the HTML. Alistair On 23 Mar 2006, at 12:11, Jon Maber wrote: > Alistair, > > could you give a rough description of what logic is contained in > your My Modules plugin? > > So far as I can see, I think your My Modules plugin idea is > perfectly reasonable. However, I do think there are some details of > implementation that need to be sorted out so I have some questions. > > 1) Instantiation of the Plugin. > One instance per Bodington web app? > One instance per resource? > One instance per template? > One instance per user session? > > 2) Initialisation. > Instantiated when web app initialises? > Instantiated when first accessed by template? > > 3) Calls out from plugin > Does the plugin use just standard runtime packages or does it hook > into Bodington classes? For example? > > 4) Calls into the plugin. > Does your plugin have multiple functionality? > Does it use parameters to its method calls? > > > 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 12:11:53
|
Alistair, could you give a rough description of what logic is contained in your My Modules plugin? So far as I can see, I think your My Modules plugin idea is perfectly reasonable. However, I do think there are some details of implementation that need to be sorted out so I have some questions. 1) Instantiation of the Plugin. One instance per Bodington web app? One instance per resource? One instance per template? One instance per user session? 2) Initialisation. Instantiated when web app initialises? Instantiated when first accessed by template? 3) Calls out from plugin Does the plugin use just standard runtime packages or does it hook into Bodington classes? For example? 4) Calls into the plugin. Does your plugin have multiple functionality? Does it use parameters to its method calls? Jon |
|
From: Atif S. <BM...@bm...> - 2006-03-23 12:07:38
|
Sean Mehan wrote: >This is *really* important. Is it correct in head and ready to stay in the >2.8 branch? Has anyone else tested it? How does it work? Is there any >documentation? How does it configure? > >We need this to work and it would be *much* better if it was in 2.8 rather >than 2.10!!!!! > > >HELP > >s > > Yes it works. Aggie tested it and demo it in public. To make bod work with a service provider guard (i.e. Guanxi SP or SHIB SP) you need to configure the following file in bod: $BODINGTON_HOME/WEB-INF/bodington-sp/config/sp-authenticator.xml The documentation on *HOW TO* configure bodington to work with a SP Guard is in this file. The configuration file is very SIMPLE. Ta Atif. |
|
From: Andrew B. <a.g...@le...> - 2006-03-23 11:49:57
|
Yes, yes, perfectly, ask Atif, ask Atif In that order -----Original Message----- From: bod...@li... [mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of = Sean Mehan Sent: 23 March 2006 11:46 To: bod...@li... Cc: bod...@li... Subject: Re: [Bodington-developers] Bod as SP for 2.8? This is *really* important. Is it correct in head and ready to stay in = the 2.8 branch? Has anyone else tested it? How does it work? Is there any documentation? How does it configure? We need this to work and it would be *much* better if it was in 2.8 = rather than 2.10!!!!! HELP s <quote who=3D"Atif Suleman"> > >> Aggie/Atif - is bod as sp ready to go for 2.8? Just wondering if you >> want to release it for 2.8. > > Yes. just small fix for [zone].allusers to add. Other than the small = fix > it's ready to Rock & Roll for 2.8 > >> Alistair (resting from ranting against Facility) > > cool. > > Ta > Atif. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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=3D= 121642 > _______________________________________________ > 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 ------------------------------------------------------- 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: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 11:46:15
|
This is *really* important. Is it correct in head and ready to stay in th= e 2.8 branch? Has anyone else tested it? How does it work? Is there any documentation? How does it configure? We need this to work and it would be *much* better if it was in 2.8 rathe= r than 2.10!!!!! HELP s <quote who=3D"Atif Suleman"> > >> Aggie/Atif - is bod as sp ready to go for 2.8? Just wondering if you >> want to release it for 2.8. > > Yes. just small fix for [zone].allusers to add. Other than the small fi= x > it's ready to Rock & Roll for 2.8 > >> Alistair (resting from ranting against Facility) > > cool. > > Ta > Atif. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Atif S. <BM...@bm...> - 2006-03-23 11:39:28
|
> Aggie/Atif - is bod as sp ready to go for 2.8? Just wondering if you > want to release it for 2.8. Yes. just small fix for [zone].allusers to add. Other than the small fix it's ready to Rock & Roll for 2.8 > Alistair (resting from ranting against Facility) cool. Ta Atif. |
|
From: Andrew B. <a.g...@le...> - 2006-03-23 11:27:37
|
No We haven't yet put in the MySQL support or the peer-marker. We have been waiting for a quiet time in which to do it. Aggie -----Original Message----- From: bod...@li... [mailto:bod...@li...] On Behalf Of Alistair Young Sent: 23 March 2006 11:10 To: bod...@li... Subject: [Bodington-developers] Bod as SP for 2.8? Aggie/Atif - is bod as sp ready to go for 2.8? Just wondering if you =20 want to release it for 2.8. Alistair (resting from ranting against Facility) ------------------------------------------------------- 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=3D= 121642 _______________________________________________ Bodington-developers mailing list Bod...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 11:09:40
|
Aggie/Atif - is bod as sp ready to go for 2.8? Just wondering if you want to release it for 2.8. Alistair (resting from ranting against Facility) |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2006-03-23 11:08:40
|
It's just too complicated for me Matthew, plus I don't want anything to do with Facility! My Modules is not a facility so it shouldn't subclass it. We're still being hoodwinked by the template processor. I want to call any class, not just Facility. Look into my eyes, not around the eyes, into them.... there is no Facility :) If My Modules is useful for someone, they would add the <plugin ... / > tag to their template and get the functionality. If they hadn't installed the plugin, they'd get an error message. Can't see anything wrong with that. I think we're keeping our templates in our cvs rather than sf. We just need a hook into Facility to display our stuff. Of course, if a template can call any class we wouldn't need the hook. I think we're only having this conversation coz Facility rules the roost in bod. It should be deposed, now! Alistair On 23 Mar 2006, at 10:37, Matthew Buckett wrote: > Alistair Young wrote: >> Bodders, I've been delurked, damn, to ask opinions. >> >> We have a requirement for My Modules, which is specific to us so >> we don't >> want to pollute Facility. However, a template must call facility >> to get it >> to write stuff to the screen. > > How about using the existing Bodington facility for doing this that is > used for the Recycle building? So you: > > Subclass Facility - Create > public class UhiFacility extends Facility .... adding the Uhi > specific > functionality. > > For the changes to the template create a new template style > /tomcatadd/webapps/bodington/templates/style_1/ and copy and change > any > templates that need to be different for the UHI code. > > Edit the bodington-defaults and replace references to Facility with > UhiFacility. > > Change the database so that the style of the root resource is 1 so > that > templates are first loaded from the UHI template folder (style_1). > > The only problem that I can see at the moment is that for Facility > subclasses they still extend the standard facility so things like > questionnaire facility wouldn't have the extra UHI functionality. > > -- > -- 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 |
19 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
