turbine-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Weaver, Scott" <Swea...@rippe.com>
Subject RE: Using NumberKeys: Conflict between built-in and decoupled Tor que in Turbine 2.2b1
Date Mon, 03 Jun 2002 15:24:08 GMT
> > Is it that turbine 2.2 users avoid using keys, and fill in 
> those values 
> > some other ways?

I use turbine 2.2 without using the de-coupled torque/fulcrum.  The coupled
versions of both fulcrum and torque are fully functional within turbine 2.2
and that is what I use.  

AFAIK there are still outstanding issues regarding the compatibility of some
decoupled fulcrum services and the core of turbine, including: De-coupled
Security Service not compatible with RunData and I think I read there is an
issue with file uploads but I'm not sure.

hth,
Scott



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Age Mooy [mailto:amooy@home.nl]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:03 AM
> To: Turbine Users List
> Subject: RE: Using NumberKeys: Conflict between built-in and decoupled
> Torque in Turbine 2.2b1
> 
> 
> I have no solution to this problem but my own workaround is 
> that instead of:
> 
> data.getParameters().setProperties(entry);
> 
> I do:
> 
> Entry entry = new Entry();
> 
> entry.setX(new NumberKey(data.getParameters().getInt("x", -1)));
> entry.setY(data.getParameters().getString("y", "none"));
> etc.
> 
> It's a bit more manual work but this way you totally control 
> what goes into
> your Entry instance.
> 
> Age
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc-Antoine Parent [mailto:maparent@mac.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 15:14
> > To: turbine-user@jakarta.apache.org
> > Subject: Using NumberKeys: Conflict between built-in and decoupled
> > Torque in Turbine 2.2b1
> > 
> > 
> > Good day!
> > I am making a few basic experiments with Turbine, and I have tables 
> > connected with INTEGER foreign keys, which come up in my om 
> objects as 
> > org.apache.torque.om.NumberKeys fields. Fine.
> > When I try to create objects from a form in an ActionEvent, doing
> >          data.getParameters().setProperties(entry);
> > it invokes a org.apache.turbine.util.parser.BaseValueParser 
> (possibly 
> > actually a DefaultParameterParser) which only knows about 
> > org.apache.turbine.om.NumberKey... and hences throws an 
> exception at the 
> > end of the following method:
> >      private void setProperty(Object bean,
> >                               PropertyDescriptor prop)
> > 
> > Now, I read a bit on the list, and people say that there 
> are problems 
> > with the built-in and decoupled torque versions, but it 
> does seem that 
> > people generally get past the hurdle of creating an object 
> from a form!
> > I cannot use turbine 2.1 as it chokes on tables without a 
> primary key;
> > and I tried turbine 3, but I got lost in the documentation (or 
> > scantiness thereof at this stage.)
> > Is it that turbine 2.2 users avoid using keys, and fill in 
> those values 
> > some other ways?
> > Is there an alternative to the BaseValueParser? I also had 
> a look at 
> > intake, and it seems to also use the 
> org.apache.turbine.om.NumberKey 
> > (built-in.)
> > Anyway... ideas appreciated at this point.
> > Thank you,
> > Marc-Antoine Parent
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> > <mailto:turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
> > <mailto:turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> > 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
<mailto:turbine-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:turbine-user-help@jakarta.apache.org>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message