> -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Beeson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Partition XWork [Was: Re: XWork flux] > > > Jason says 7 jars, Hani says 1, Pat says 2. I have two things to say.
Ummm... No. I said the real question was .... Then said I thought one Webwork jar was enough. > > First, should webwork-2.0.jar include the code in > xwork-1.0.jar, or should it depend on it? One way makes > webwork-2.0.jar stand alone, the other keeps the webwork (not > xwork) specific code abstracted from xwork code. I think we could include the xwork-1.0.jar in the distribution, and it would need to be in the classpath when you run webwork, just like it needs commons-logging, etc. > > Second, maybe there should be one separate jar for the view code? Why? Webwork is going to be almost ALL view code, since we're abstracting out the command pattern stuff into xwork. So I guess in a way, there is a separate jar for the view code, it's just called Webwork :-) > > Third, all of this should be configurable via > build.properties, so one could have a single webwork-2.0.jar > with everything included, or one could have more smaller jars > as Jason suggested. Again, I didn't suggest it, and don't think it's a good idea. I also don't think building xwork into webwork is a good idea, since they'll be separate CVS modules. > > I guess the real question is what should the default be? > Maybe 2 files, like Pat said, and have the web tied view code > in webwork.jar and the non web view code in xwork.jar? > > Ok, so 3 things to say. > > --Erik > > Jason ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
