Spring and dwr 2.0.3 bean property exclusion

[ezamur]

Hi, all

I am having some difficulties with configuring the dwr and spring. What I want is to exclude some bean properties in order not to be marshaled to the javascript and back.

This is what I have in part of my configuration:

<dwr:configuration>
...
      <dwr:convert class="....core.datamodel.AdvertisingCompany" type="bean" />
...
</dwr:configuration>

and it is working fine, except I have a log entry that converter is missing for some of properties of AdvertisingCompany class, like this

ERROR [org.directwebremoting.dwrp.DefaultConverterManager] No converter found for ...

I repeat, this issue does not break my application, but I am troubled with that being logged as error. Is there any way of excluding the property in bean conversion configuration or, at least, configuring the dwr no to treat it as error?

Thank you in advance

--
Zamurovic Dusan

[XMaNIaC]

From the manual...

http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/dwrxml/converters/bean.html

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Dusan Zamurovic <ezamur@...> wrote:

Hi, all

I am having some difficulties with configuring the dwr and spring. What I want is to exclude some bean properties in order not to be marshaled to the javascript and back.

This is what I have in part of my configuration:

<dwr:configuration>
...
      <dwr:convert class="....core.datamodel.AdvertisingCompany" type="bean" />
...
</dwr:configuration>

and it is working fine, except I have a log entry that converter is missing for some of properties of AdvertisingCompany class, like this

ERROR [org.directwebremoting.dwrp.DefaultConverterManager] No converter found for ...

I repeat, this issue does not break my application, but I am troubled with that being logged as error. Is there any way of excluding the property in bean conversion configuration or, at least, configuring the dwr no to treat it as error?

Thank you in advance

--
Zamurovic Dusan

[ezamur]

Thanks for your answer, Jose, but that doesn't fit for me.

I am aware of what you suggest, but that kind of configuration demands a dwr.xml file. My project is already configured in different way, through the spring configuration of dwr.

--
Zamurovic Dusan

[XMaNIaC]

http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/integration/spring.html

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dusan Zamurovic <ezamur@...> wrote:

Thanks for your answer, Jose, but that doesn't fit for me.

I am aware of what you suggest, but that kind of configuration demands a dwr.xml file. My project is already configured in different way, through the spring configuration of dwr.

--
Zamurovic Dusan

[Stevo Slavic]

include/exclude tag "method" attribute name is so misleading in this case. Guess element definition is being reused. I couldn't find any docs mentioning this. Only after debugging dwr loggic (luckily it's open source) was it determined that one shouldn't specify accessor method name, but attribute name for method attribute value.

Regards,
Stevo.

XMaNIaC wrote:

http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/integration/spring.html

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dusan Zamurovic <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks for your answer, Jose, but that doesn't fit for me.
>
> I am aware of what you suggest, but that kind of configuration demands a
> dwr.xml file. My project is already configured in different way, through the
> spring configuration of dwr.
>
> --
> Zamurovic Dusan
>

[davidmarginian]

I agree and we have spoken about this before.  Debugging isn't really necessary though, you could have looked at the schema.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Stevo Slavic <sslavic@...> wrote:

include/exclude tag "method" attribute name is so misleading in this case.
Guess element definition is being reused. I couldn't find any docs
mentioning this. Only after debugging dwr loggic (luckily it's open source)
was it determined that one shouldn't specify accessor method name, but
attribute name for method attribute value.

Regards,
Stevo.


XMaNIaC wrote:
>
> http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/integration/spring.html
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dusan Zamurovic <ezamur@...>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your answer, Jose, but that doesn't fit for me.
>>
>> I am aware of what you suggest, but that kind of configuration demands a
>> dwr.xml file. My project is already configured in different way, through
>> the
>> spring configuration of dwr.
>>
>> --
>> Zamurovic Dusan
>>
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25771425.html
Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Stevo Slavic]

Yes, I've checked that before debugging, and from this schema one can only see that include and exclude type definition is being reused in convert and remote type definition which can only further mislead user. If there was only a single sentence annotation/documentation related to this in convert type definition things would have been way much better. Guess it wouldn't hurt if the schema would get republished with this documentation added even now.

Regards,
Stevo.

davidmarginian wrote:

I agree and we have spoken about this before.  Debugging isn't really
necessary though, you could have looked at the schema.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Stevo Slavic <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> include/exclude tag "method" attribute name is so misleading in this case.
> Guess element definition is being reused. I couldn't find any docs
> mentioning this. Only after debugging dwr loggic (luckily it's open source)
> was it determined that one shouldn't specify accessor method name, but
> attribute name for method attribute value.
>
> Regards,
> Stevo.
>
>
> XMaNIaC wrote:
> >
> > http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/integration/spring.html
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dusan Zamurovic <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for your answer, Jose, but that doesn't fit for me.
> >>
> >> I am aware of what you suggest, but that kind of configuration demands a
> >> dwr.xml file. My project is already configured in different way, through
> >> the
> >> spring configuration of dwr.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Zamurovic Dusan
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25771425.html
> Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [e-mail]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [e-mail]
>
>

[davidmarginian]

Actually I think I misread your original email and I was referring to something else.  If you read the DWR documentation regarding converters you would not have had a problem:

http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/dwrxml/converters/bean.html (see Restricting Property Conversion)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Stevo Slavic <sslavic@...> wrote:

Yes, I've checked that before debugging, and from
http://directwebremoting.org/schema/spring-dwr-2.0.xsd this schema  one can
only see that include and exclude type definition is being reused in convert
and remote type definition which can only further mislead user. If there was
only a single sentence annotation/documentation related to this in convert
type definition things would have been way much better. Guess it wouldn't
hurt if the schema would get republished with this documentation added even
now.

Regards,
Stevo.


davidmarginian wrote:
>
> I agree and we have spoken about this before.  Debugging isn't really
> necessary though, you could have looked at the schema.
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Stevo Slavic <sslavic@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> include/exclude tag "method" attribute name is so misleading in this
>> case.
>> Guess element definition is being reused. I couldn't find any docs
>> mentioning this. Only after debugging dwr loggic (luckily it's open
>> source)
>> was it determined that one shouldn't specify accessor method name, but
>> attribute name for method attribute value.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stevo.
>>
>>
>> XMaNIaC wrote:
>> >
>> > http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/integration/spring.html
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dusan Zamurovic <ezamur@...>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks for your answer, Jose, but that doesn't fit for me.
>> >>
>> >> I am aware of what you suggest, but that kind of configuration demands
>> a
>> >> dwr.xml file. My project is already configured in different way,
>> through
>> >> the
>> >> spring configuration of dwr.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Zamurovic Dusan
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25771425.html
>> Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>>
>>
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25776452.html
Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Stevo Slavic]

As Dusan pointed out, that documentation is for dwr.xml, while problem is in configuring Spring context for DWR Spring integration. In Restricting Property Conversion, explanation just after configuration example mentions getter methods that they wouldn't get called, so without debugging one couldn't know for sure whether DWR Spring integration requires method (as attribute name suggests) or property name (which is the actual case) in include/exclude for bean converter.

Besides updating previously mentioned schema, it would be nice if DWR Spring Integration page included an example for restricting property conversion equivalent to the one in Bean and Object Converters page.

Regards,
Stevo.

davidmarginian wrote:

Actually I think I misread your original email and I was referring to
something else.  If you read the DWR documentation regarding converters you
would not have had a problem:
http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/dwrxml/converters/bean.html(see
Restricting Property Conversion)


On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Stevo Slavic <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Yes, I've checked that before debugging, and from
> http://directwebremoting.org/schema/spring-dwr-2.0.xsd this schema  one
> can
> only see that include and exclude type definition is being reused in
> convert
> and remote type definition which can only further mislead user. If there
> was
> only a single sentence annotation/documentation related to this in convert
> type definition things would have been way much better. Guess it wouldn't
> hurt if the schema would get republished with this documentation added even
> now.
>
> Regards,
> Stevo.
>
>
> davidmarginian wrote:
> >
> > I agree and we have spoken about this before.  Debugging isn't really
> > necessary though, you could have looked at the schema.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Stevo Slavic <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> include/exclude tag "method" attribute name is so misleading in this
> >> case.
> >> Guess element definition is being reused. I couldn't find any docs
> >> mentioning this. Only after debugging dwr loggic (luckily it's open
> >> source)
> >> was it determined that one shouldn't specify accessor method name, but
> >> attribute name for method attribute value.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Stevo.
> >>
> >>
> >> XMaNIaC wrote:
> >> >
> >> > http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/integration/spring.html
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dusan Zamurovic <[e-mail]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Thanks for your answer, Jose, but that doesn't fit for me.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am aware of what you suggest, but that kind of configuration
> demands
> >> a
> >> >> dwr.xml file. My project is already configured in different way,
> >> through
> >> >> the
> >> >> spring configuration of dwr.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Zamurovic Dusan
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25771425.html
> >> Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [e-mail]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [e-mail]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25776452.html
> Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [e-mail]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [e-mail]
>
>

[davidmarginian]

I am aware you are working in Spring, however the implementation is the same.  A converter is a converter, where it is configured does not matter.  The bottom line is that reading the docs WOULD have directed you in the correct direction.  The example clearly illustrates the exclusions/inclusions are based on the property name - not the accessor name:

<param name="exclude" value="property1, property2"/>

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Stevo Slavic <sslavic@...> wrote:

As Dusan pointed out, that documentation is for dwr.xml, while problem is in
configuring Spring context for DWR Spring integration. In Restricting
Property Conversion, explanation just after configuration example mentions
getter methods that they wouldn't get called, so without debugging one
couldn't know for sure whether DWR Spring integration requires method (as
attribute name suggests) or property name (which is the actual case) in
include/exclude for bean converter.

Besides updating previously mentioned schema, it would be nice if
http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/integration/spring.html DWR Spring
Integration  page included an example for restricting property conversion
equivalent to the one in
http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/dwrxml/converters/bean.html Bean and
Object Converters  page.

Regards,
Stevo.



davidmarginian wrote:
>
> Actually I think I misread your original email and I was referring to
> something else.  If you read the DWR documentation regarding converters
> you
> would not have had a problem:
> http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/dwrxml/converters/bean.html(see
> Restricting Property Conversion)
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Stevo Slavic <sslavic@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I've checked that before debugging, and from
>> http://directwebremoting.org/schema/spring-dwr-2.0.xsd this schema  one
>> can
>> only see that include and exclude type definition is being reused in
>> convert
>> and remote type definition which can only further mislead user. If there
>> was
>> only a single sentence annotation/documentation related to this in
>> convert
>> type definition things would have been way much better. Guess it wouldn't
>> hurt if the schema would get republished with this documentation added
>> even
>> now.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stevo.
>>
>>
>> davidmarginian wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree and we have spoken about this before.  Debugging isn't really
>> > necessary though, you could have looked at the schema.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Stevo Slavic <sslavic@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> include/exclude tag "method" attribute name is so misleading in this
>> >> case.
>> >> Guess element definition is being reused. I couldn't find any docs
>> >> mentioning this. Only after debugging dwr loggic (luckily it's open
>> >> source)
>> >> was it determined that one shouldn't specify accessor method name, but
>> >> attribute name for method attribute value.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Stevo.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> XMaNIaC wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/integration/spring.html
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dusan Zamurovic <ezamur@...>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Thanks for your answer, Jose, but that doesn't fit for me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am aware of what you suggest, but that kind of configuration
>> demands
>> >> a
>> >> >> dwr.xml file. My project is already configured in different way,
>> >> through
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> spring configuration of dwr.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Zamurovic Dusan
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>> http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25771425.html
>> >> Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25776452.html
>> Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>>
>>
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25777205.html
Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[davidmarginian]

For the next release I will add the following note to the docs and the schema to make this even more clear:

"Exclusion/Inclusions are based on the property name not the accessor method (getter/setter).

Would that be good for you?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM, David Marginian <david@...> wrote:

I am aware you are working in Spring, however the implementation is the same.  A converter is a converter, where it is configured does not matter.  The bottom line is that reading the docs WOULD have directed you in the correct direction.  The example clearly illustrates the exclusions/inclusions are based on the property name - not the accessor name:

<param name="exclude" value="property1, property2"/>

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Stevo Slavic <sslavic@...> wrote:

As Dusan pointed out, that documentation is for dwr.xml, while problem is in
configuring Spring context for DWR Spring integration. In Restricting
Property Conversion, explanation just after configuration example mentions
getter methods that they wouldn't get called, so without debugging one
couldn't know for sure whether DWR Spring integration requires method (as
attribute name suggests) or property name (which is the actual case) in
include/exclude for bean converter.

Besides updating previously mentioned schema, it would be nice if
http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/integration/spring.html DWR Spring
Integration  page included an example for restricting property conversion
equivalent to the one in
http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/dwrxml/converters/bean.html Bean and
Object Converters  page.

Regards,
Stevo.



davidmarginian wrote:
>
> Actually I think I misread your original email and I was referring to
> something else.  If you read the DWR documentation regarding converters
> you
> would not have had a problem:
> http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/dwrxml/converters/bean.html(see
> Restricting Property Conversion)
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Stevo Slavic <sslavic@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I've checked that before debugging, and from
>> http://directwebremoting.org/schema/spring-dwr-2.0.xsd this schema  one
>> can
>> only see that include and exclude type definition is being reused in
>> convert
>> and remote type definition which can only further mislead user. If there
>> was
>> only a single sentence annotation/documentation related to this in
>> convert
>> type definition things would have been way much better. Guess it wouldn't
>> hurt if the schema would get republished with this documentation added
>> even
>> now.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stevo.
>>
>>
>> davidmarginian wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree and we have spoken about this before.  Debugging isn't really
>> > necessary though, you could have looked at the schema.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Stevo Slavic <sslavic@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> include/exclude tag "method" attribute name is so misleading in this
>> >> case.
>> >> Guess element definition is being reused. I couldn't find any docs
>> >> mentioning this. Only after debugging dwr loggic (luckily it's open
>> >> source)
>> >> was it determined that one shouldn't specify accessor method name, but
>> >> attribute name for method attribute value.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Stevo.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> XMaNIaC wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/integration/spring.html
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dusan Zamurovic <ezamur@...>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Thanks for your answer, Jose, but that doesn't fit for me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am aware of what you suggest, but that kind of configuration
>> demands
>> >> a
>> >> >> dwr.xml file. My project is already configured in different way,
>> >> through
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> spring configuration of dwr.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Zamurovic Dusan
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>> http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25771425.html
>> >> Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25776452.html
>> Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>>
>>
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25777205.html
Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Stevo Slavic]

Yes, thank you very much!

Regards,
Stevo.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:19 AM, David Marginian <david@...> wrote:

For the next release I will add the following note to the docs and the schema to make this even more clear:

"Exclusion/Inclusions are based on the property name not the accessor method (getter/setter).

Would that be good for you?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM, David Marginian <david@...> wrote:

I am aware you are working in Spring, however the implementation is the same.  A converter is a converter, where it is configured does not matter.  The bottom line is that reading the docs WOULD have directed you in the correct direction.  The example clearly illustrates the exclusions/inclusions are based on the property name - not the accessor name:

<param name="exclude" value="property1, property2"/>

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Stevo Slavic <sslavic@...> wrote:

As Dusan pointed out, that documentation is for dwr.xml, while problem is in
configuring Spring context for DWR Spring integration. In Restricting
Property Conversion, explanation just after configuration example mentions
getter methods that they wouldn't get called, so without debugging one
couldn't know for sure whether DWR Spring integration requires method (as
attribute name suggests) or property name (which is the actual case) in
include/exclude for bean converter.

Besides updating previously mentioned schema, it would be nice if
http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/integration/spring.html DWR Spring
Integration  page included an example for restricting property conversion
equivalent to the one in
http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/dwrxml/converters/bean.html Bean and
Object Converters  page.

Regards,
Stevo.



davidmarginian wrote:
>
> Actually I think I misread your original email and I was referring to
> something else.  If you read the DWR documentation regarding converters
> you
> would not have had a problem:
> http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/dwrxml/converters/bean.html(see
> Restricting Property Conversion)
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Stevo Slavic <sslavic@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I've checked that before debugging, and from
>> http://directwebremoting.org/schema/spring-dwr-2.0.xsd this schema  one
>> can
>> only see that include and exclude type definition is being reused in
>> convert
>> and remote type definition which can only further mislead user. If there
>> was
>> only a single sentence annotation/documentation related to this in
>> convert
>> type definition things would have been way much better. Guess it wouldn't
>> hurt if the schema would get republished with this documentation added
>> even
>> now.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stevo.
>>
>>
>> davidmarginian wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree and we have spoken about this before.  Debugging isn't really
>> > necessary though, you could have looked at the schema.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Stevo Slavic <sslavic@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> include/exclude tag "method" attribute name is so misleading in this
>> >> case.
>> >> Guess element definition is being reused. I couldn't find any docs
>> >> mentioning this. Only after debugging dwr loggic (luckily it's open
>> >> source)
>> >> was it determined that one shouldn't specify accessor method name, but
>> >> attribute name for method attribute value.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Stevo.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> XMaNIaC wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://directwebremoting.org/dwr/server/integration/spring.html
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dusan Zamurovic <ezamur@...>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Thanks for your answer, Jose, but that doesn't fit for me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am aware of what you suggest, but that kind of configuration
>> demands
>> >> a
>> >> >> dwr.xml file. My project is already configured in different way,
>> >> through
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> spring configuration of dwr.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Zamurovic Dusan
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>> http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25771425.html
>> >> Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25776452.html
>> Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>>
>>
>
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-and-dwr-2.0.3-bean-property-exclusion-tp25540810p25777205.html
Sent from the DWR - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...