>From: Hubert Rabago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 12/21/05, David Geary 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. >
On the Shale front, Craig was working on the tiger extension between sessions at the apache conference. This is a set of annotation that will register managed beans. http://struts.apache.org/struts-shale/shale-tiger/apidocs/index.html > Hubert > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gary
