On Wed, March 16, 2005 12:07 pm, Niall Pemberton said: > I haven't looked at your actual implementation, but my gut feel is that we > need to be careful about adding new elements to the struts-config.xml - > the > simpler the better IMO. Maybe there are alternative mechanisms that > achieve > the same goal. Martin suggested ChainAction in that thread (for Struts > 1.3) - another, Struts 1.2, option would be to use a Tiles Controller.
I did look in to at least some of the suggestions. None of them I felt achieved the same result, they all missed one point or another (and to be fair, some may have had additional benefits over what I proposed). I do see your point about expanding the config DTD, it is something to be careful of certainly. But, if what is done to it only *adds* to it, while being cautious is still good of course, I think its something that should be considered. > At the end of the day its a bit chicken and egg as far as contributions > and > committers go. If you post an idea, people say "code talks" - if you go to > the trouble of doing the code (as you did), its disheartening to get > either > no reaction or a -ve one. Glad I'm not the only one that noticed that :) It's all a bit contradictory really (not as a fault of anyone though)... I very much want to contribute, and of course I can always go through the bug database and fix stuff, but as is the nature of community development, if that doesn't scratch my itch, as the saying goes, there's no motivation to do so. This particular task did scratch an itch, and so I put in the effort, and then you get into what you said above. If anyone reading this is thinking I'm just being bitter and bitching, that is not the case. I am simply trying to see if there is a way to salvage the idea I had, go somewhere acceptable to all with it, in a fashion that scratches my itch (ok, I am *officially* SICK of that expression!!) > Its a bit hit and miss whether you're going to > find anyone with either the desire or time to plug in what you produce > (I've > had very little over the last few months). Time is of course a rare commodity for most of us I'd suspect, I completely understand that. > Back porting to 1.2 is more > effort so the same goes. Personally, once I switch over to 1.3 the > motivation for me to duplicate work on 1.2 will not be that high. But if there are others that still want or need to use 1.2, and there are some that are willing to tackle some of that work, wouldn't there be support for that (keeping compatibility in mind of course, I think that's a perfectly valid concern)? I mean, let's be honest, there's probably not a whole lot coming down the pipe that can and/or could be back-ported, but if something comes up, at least until enough of the community has moved to 1.3, and there are people willing to do it, why not support that effort? I just hate the thought that because the Struts team themselves are all ready to move to 1.3, that the rest of us have to if we want to get the new features (I'm ignoring the possibility of hacking the framework ourselves because that simply isn't allowed in some environments, mine for example). I have no problem if you guys don't have the time or the desire to work on anything but 1.3, but if some of us do, why not support that? Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
