webwork-devel Mailing List for WebWork (Page 37)

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/docs
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv29285

Modified Files:
	expr-number.xml 
Log Message:
changed from Integer to Number

I have used both. I used inline when it made sense and a reference section
for obvious stuff that related to several sections. I guess right now, lets
just get it on paper and we can refactor the book later. Feel free to write
your section as you see fit and we can look at the book as a whole later for
uniformity.

-Matt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Bose" <dig...@ya...>
To: "webwork-devel" <web...@li...>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 9:24 PM
Subject: [Webwork-devel] References in the docs

> I was wondering if we could have uniform references in the docs. For
example,
> either in text references:
>
>    Blah blah blah foo (see Foo HowTo)
>
> maybe at the end, in a reference section:
>
>    For more details on Foo please look at the Foo HowTo section.
>
> or even a mixture of both? I know this is not too important, but document
> uniformity is nice to have.
>
> =====
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Bose
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webwork-devel mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel
>
>

Fixed.  Thanks for the catch Johan!

-Maurice

On Friday, January 18, 2002, at 01:25 AM, Wirell Johan wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There seems to be a small problem in the webwork expression
> language when comparing two numbers. The current code converts
> both numbers to float values before comparing them. This may be
> a problem when comparing long values since precision could be
> lost when converted to a float. The following two numbers will
> because of this be considered equal for example:
>
> 1011170535000
> 1011170557000
>
> An easy solution would be to change the comparison
> code in parser.jj to be "double" based instead:
>
>               if ( operand1 instanceof Number && operand2 instanceof 
> Number ) {
>
>                   double number1 = ((Number)operand1).doubleValue();
>                   double number2 = ((Number)operand2).doubleValue();
>
>                   int comp = -1; // less than
>                   if ( number1 > number2 ) {
>                       comp = 1;  // greater than
>                   } else if ( number1 == number2 ) {
>                       long longBits1 = Double.doubleToLongBits(number1);
>                       long longBits2 = Double.doubleToLongBits(number2);
>                       if ( longBits1 > longBits2 ) {
>                           comp = 1;
>                       } else if ( longBits1 == longBits2 ) {
>                           comp = 0;
>                       }
>                   }
>
>                   return resolve(comp, token);
>
>               }
>
> Regards,
> Johan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webwork-devel mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel
>

Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/main/webwork/expr
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv26605

Modified Files:
	Parser.jj 
Log Message:
increased the precision of the number comparisons

I'm -1 on using CSS over tables on this unless we can get it going with=20=

the version 4 browsers.  Many shops still require backwards =
compatibility=20
that far.

Did TSS give you any minimum browser requirements?  Any browser usage=20
numbers for the site?

How about just adding another set of templates for CSS and not delete =
the=20
"standard" templates?

-Maurice

On Saturday, January 19, 2002, at 09:18 AM, Rickard wrote:

> Hey
>
> I'm fiddling with the WebWork controls for use in TSS, and tried to=20
> convert the templates to use CSS instead of tables for layout control.
>
> It was pretty simple, and the result was much less JSP's and easier to=20=

> control in more detail, plus there's no need for a table to construct =
a=20
> form this way. Much nicer.
>
> So, is everyone ok with using this instead of the table approach to =
doing=20
> layout? I tested it with Mozilla, IE 5.5 and Opera 6, and they all =
liked=20
> the CSS.
>
> /Rickard
>
> -- Rickard =D6berg
> Author of "Mastering RMI"
> Chief Architect, TheServerSide.com
>   The Middleware Company - We Build Experts!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webwork-devel mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel
>

I was wondering if we could have uniform references in the docs. For example,
either in text references:

   Blah blah blah foo (see Foo HowTo)

maybe at the end, in a reference section:

   For more details on Foo please look at the Foo HowTo section.

or even a mixture of both? I know this is not too important, but document
uniformity is nice to have.

=====
Respectfully,

Jay Bose

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Bose" <dig...@ya...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 8:51 PM
Subject: [Webwork-devel] Form controls

> I'm currently finishing up the Form HOW-TO, and in it there's the subject
of
> form controls. I have already included basic info about WebWork form
controls,
> but I was wondering if anyone thought I should (not) include a building
form
> controls (templates -- using CSS, and their classes) section? For example,
> going over the TextFieldTag class and the text.jsp file.
>

Sounds good to me. You might want to hold off on this to see how the
template discussion pans out. For instance, we might have two themes (table,
CSS) that would be worthwhile explaining referencing an example tag.

-Matt

> =====
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Bose
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webwork-devel mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel
>
>

I'm currently finishing up the Form HOW-TO, and in it there's the subject of
form controls. I have already included basic info about WebWork form controls,
but I was wondering if anyone thought I should (not) include a building form
controls (templates -- using CSS, and their classes) section? For example,
going over the TextFieldTag class and the text.jsp file.

=====
Respectfully,

Jay Bose

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

No! My vote is definitely -1 on this one. The default templates as is use
tables which is much more cross browser compatible and easy to modify IMHO.

I have no problem with a CSS 'scheme' for templates but IMHO the default
should use tables. 

I know people are going to bitch about which the 'default' scheme should be
- so I have a counter argument ;) Why not add a configuration option for the
'default' scheme to webwork.properties?

ui.scheme.default=css

Etc. That way tables can be the default (with no extra configuration) and
people with the 'know how' can easily change to CSS as the default scheme
with one change (not changing every <ui> tag!) - much less bitching!

(IMHO this option also has lots of extra uses, sometimes I'd like to
'design' a new scheme and then swap the entire site at once to a new scheme
- this would make it very easy)

My $0.02.

-mike

On 19/1/02 10:18 AM, "Rickard" (ri...@mi...) penned the
words:

> Hey
> 
> I'm fiddling with the WebWork controls for use in TSS, and tried to
> convert the templates to use CSS instead of tables for layout control.
> 
> It was pretty simple, and the result was much less JSP's and easier to
> control in more detail, plus there's no need for a table to construct a
> form this way. Much nicer.
> 
> So, is everyone ok with using this instead of the table approach to
> doing layout? I tested it with Mozilla, IE 5.5 and Opera 6, and they all
> liked the CSS.
> 
> /Rickard

ok.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rickard" <ri...@mi...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 9:18 AM
Subject: [Webwork-devel] Controls and CSS vs tables

> Hey
>
> I'm fiddling with the WebWork controls for use in TSS, and tried to
> convert the templates to use CSS instead of tables for layout control.
>
> It was pretty simple, and the result was much less JSP's and easier to
> control in more detail, plus there's no need for a table to construct a
> form this way. Much nicer.
>
> So, is everyone ok with using this instead of the table approach to
> doing layout? I tested it with Mozilla, IE 5.5 and Opera 6, and they all
> liked the CSS.
>
> /Rickard
>
> --
> Rickard Öberg
> Author of "Mastering RMI"
> Chief Architect, TheServerSide.com
>    The Middleware Company - We Build Experts!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webwork-devel mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel
>
>

Hey

I'm fiddling with the WebWork controls for use in TSS, and tried to 
convert the templates to use CSS instead of tables for layout control.

It was pretty simple, and the result was much less JSP's and easier to 
control in more detail, plus there's no need for a table to construct a 
form this way. Much nicer.

So, is everyone ok with using this instead of the table approach to 
doing layout? I tested it with Mozilla, IE 5.5 and Opera 6, and they all 
liked the CSS.

/Rickard

-- 
Rickard Öberg
Author of "Mastering RMI"
Chief Architect, TheServerSide.com
   The Middleware Company - We Build Experts!

Hi,

There seems to be a small problem in the webwork expression
language when comparing two numbers. The current code converts
both numbers to float values before comparing them. This may be
a problem when comparing long values since precision could be
lost when converted to a float. The following two numbers will
because of this be considered equal for example:

1011170535000
1011170557000

An easy solution would be to change the comparison
code in parser.jj to be "double" based instead:

              if ( operand1 instanceof Number && operand2 instanceof Number ) {

                  double number1 = ((Number)operand1).doubleValue();
                  double number2 = ((Number)operand2).doubleValue();

                  int comp = -1; // less than
                  if ( number1 > number2 ) {
                      comp = 1;  // greater than
                  } else if ( number1 == number2 ) {
                      long longBits1 = Double.doubleToLongBits(number1);
                      long longBits2 = Double.doubleToLongBits(number2);
                      if ( longBits1 > longBits2 ) {
                          comp = 1;
                      } else if ( longBits1 == longBits2 ) {
                          comp = 0;
                      }
                  }

                  return resolve(comp, token);

              }

Regards,
Johan

Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/main/webwork/taglib
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv14767

Modified Files:
	TextTag.java 
Log Message:
modified so MessageFormat would first look for locale
from ActionSupport and then use request's locale if an action
is not on the stack;
previously you would only get default locale unless you
set a WW property;

Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/main/webwork/dispatcher
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv13258

Modified Files:
	ServletDispatcher.java 
Log Message:
renamed Logger to LoggerUtil to prevent name conflict
with jdk1.4 Logger

Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/main/webwork/util
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv13140

Added Files:
	LoggerUtil.java 
Removed Files:
	Logger.java 
Log Message:
renamed Logger to LoggerUtil to prevent name conflict
with jdk1.4 Logger

Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/main/webwork/action/test/i18n
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv12334

Modified Files:
	CDList.java Checkout.java ComputePrice.java Language.java 
	Shop.java Shop.properties Shop_de.properties 
	Shop_fr.properties Shop_sv.properties 
Removed Files:
	Shop_en.properties 
Log Message:
update for i18n doc

Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/resources/web/i18n
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv12127

Modified Files:
	cart.jsp cdlist.jsp checkout.jsp shop.jsp 
Log Message:
update for i18n doc

Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/docs
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv11828

Modified Files:
	i18n.xml 
Log Message:
done

Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/main/webwork/action
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv32107/webwork/action

Modified Files:
	ActionSupport.java 
Log Message:
Provides better exception handling for CommandDriven actions.

Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/main/webwork/action/test/tutorial/userreg
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv10912/src/main/webwork/action/test/tutorial/userreg

Modified Files:
	EmailEditor.java NameEditor.java PasswordEditor.java 
	SsnEditor.java UsernameEditor.java 
Log Message:
Applied "no-more-warnings-in-javadoc" patch provided by Bill Burton. Thanks!

Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/main/webwork/util
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv10912/src/main/webwork/util

Modified Files:
	Sorter.java 
Log Message:
Applied "no-more-warnings-in-javadoc" patch provided by Bill Burton. Thanks!

Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/main/webwork/action/standard
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv10912/src/main/webwork/action/standard

Modified Files:
	JSP.java 
Log Message:
Applied "no-more-warnings-in-javadoc" patch provided by Bill Burton. Thanks!

Hello,

Attached is a patch to fix all the javadoc warnings in the current CVS.  

-Bill
Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/main/webwork/dispatcher
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv15197

Modified Files:
	ServletDispatcher.java 
Log Message:
Added view_uri patch to allow view to access URI of the view. Kudos to Jim Cook for this contribution!

Jim...@do... wrote:

> We do invoke the actions in the right directory, most of the time. This 
> need arose when we would forward to other actions that were in different 
> directory structures. The web resource urls (images, stylesheets, etc.) 
> would resolve to the action's URL. Also, if two actions in different 
> directory hierarchies use the same view, the same problem occurs.
> 
> We are not using JSP, but we are using the <base href=""> tag to 
> accomplish what we need. It appears to be working fine for the time being. 
> We set the <base> tag to the URL of the *view*. This is constructed in our 
> BaseAction class by appending the full URI of the web context with the 
> path to the view. Hence, the view path must be accessible to the action.

I see. Hm... Well.. there's no great harm in adding what you're 
proposing, but it feels like a kludge.

Do you have CVS access? If so, feel free to add it, at least for now.

regards,
   Rickard

-- 
Rickard Öberg
Author of "Mastering RMI"
Chief Architect, TheServerSide.com
   The Middleware Company - We Build Experts!

2001	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov (316)	Dec (117)
2002	Jan (197)	Feb (229)	Mar (293)	Apr (177)	May (84)	Jun (40)	Jul (43)	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

webwork-devel Mailing List for WebWork (Page 37)

webwork-devel — WebWork development