As far as I can see the only dependency between REST and Codebehind is this class:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/struts2/trunk/plugins/rest/src/main/java/org/apache/struts2/rest/ControllerClasspathPackageProvider.java?view=markup which all it does is use Codebehind to detect actions that end in "Controller", and optionally disable package scanning. These 2 settings could be constants declared in Codebehind and overwritten by REST and the hard dependency would be gone(that's what I did with Convention in order to plug REST in). I think the problem with REST is easy to fix; one blocker down. Now, about supporting Codebehind from Convention, any other opinions (before pulling a vote on it)? musachy On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Jeromy Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeromy Evans wrote: >> >> I wouldn't rush into this decision. >> >> Users of the REST plugin require @Namespace, @Result, etc annotations. >> Creating a duplicate set of annotations with the same purpose is not >> sensible. >> >> It's appropriate that the REST plugin has a dependency on the plugin that >> auto-populates the Configuration, despite the contrary statement on the >> plugins page. >> Merging the REST plugin with Convention is also not possible as the >> implementation of ActionInvocation and ActionMapper are entirely different >> (the conventions cannot currently be mixed). >> >> There are several issues here: >> - creating a Configuration (via XML, via Annotation) >> - ActionMapping (no problems here, each plugin sets up their own) >> - ActionInvocation (standard or RESTful; they are incompatible) >> - handling unknowns >> >> One situation could be that Configuration is separate from Convention; so >> the developer can choose how the Configuration is setup and then choose >> which mapping & invocation, and unknown handling approach to use. However >> that would require another refactoring. >> >> I think making REST dependent on the Convention plugin is the way to go, >> such that the Configuration is created by Convention (but customized for >> REST *Controller class) and extended with the REST ActionMapper and >> RestActionInvocation. > > On further thought, if it is possible to split up the Convention plugin, > then it could be solved like so: > - Zero Configuration: for all annotations relating to the setup of > Configuration (merge from Convention) > - CodeBehind: implements action mapping, invocation, unknown handling, index > handling (the other half of Convention) > - REST alternative implementation of action mapping, invocation, unknown > handling > > Ideally then REST can be used with ZeroConf or XMLConf, or CodeBehind used > with ZeroConf or XMLConf. Sweet. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
