On 12/21/05, David Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, this guy's comments finally got me thinking: do we really need an XML > config file for Shale Web Flow? If we could do away with that artifact, we > could make web flow even easier to use and differentiate ourselves further > from Spring Web Flow. > > Off the top of my head, I don't see why we couldn't define dialog structure > with filesystem conventions and flow with custom tags in JSP pages. For > example, by default, a root dialog directory named WEB-INF/dialogs (users > could override with a context init param) could hold subdirectories that > represent individual dialogs. Each JSP page would represent a view. Each JSP > page could have a single custom tag that specifies the transitions out of > the page (similar in spirit to moving metadata from XML files to annotations > in Java code). > > For those that prefer explicit configuration, we can still provide the XML > option, but it would be nice to give users the choice. > > Thoughts? > > > david >
Convention over Configuration need not be limited to Dialog and Flow. I think there are opportunities for C/C in faces-config.xml as well, and wouldn't mind helping out there. I was going to work on a plugin that did C/C for struts-config, but now I don't know if there'd still be any interest in that. Hubert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
