As I understand it, our goal is to shield our users from having to know
about XWork, and that would include its DTD. Allowing XWork details to
leak through makes it confusing to find documentation, know where to
submit tickets, and ask for help.
The downside is maintaining the DTD, which is essentially the XWork 1.1
DTD in Struts, however this file is small and shouldn't be a problem.
Also, it should be noted that we are still able to recognize and process
historical xwork.xml files.
Don
Gabe wrote:
Question on this and the overall philosophy that is the goal for Struts 2. Why is it necessary to have a struts dtd rather than simply use the xwork dtd and then simply add the feature that allows the name to be changed from xwork.xml to struts.xml?
Is the goal still to keep XWork functionality out of Struts 2 or has it been
resolved to create an abstraction layer around XWork so Struts 2 users don't
use XWork directly at all?
Thanks,
Gabe
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Brown (JIRA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: issues@struts.apache.org
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 1:21:16 AM
Subject: [jira] Resolved: (WW-1376) Struts configuration files should be named
struts.xml, not xwork.xml
[ http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376?page=all ]
Don Brown resolved WW-1376:
---------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed, so now Struts has struts.xml with its own DTD
Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: WW-1376
URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376
Project: Struts 2
Type: Improvement
Components: Configuration
Reporter: Don Brown
Assignee: Don Brown
Fix For: 2.0.0
As part of the renaming and WW cleanup process, I think Struts should have its own configuration DTD, so users would use it and not the XWork one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
