The other part of that is that Conventions and OSGi do not "depend" on each other. This load order is necessary to make the two play nice, but I'd hate to be forced to use OSGi when using Conventions or vice versa because of a dependency that is unnecessary. For cases like this, there is either the choice of using a number or a generic high/low priority... I like Musachy's idea, simple and flexible, but we can enhance later if a use-case arises.
-Wes On Sunday 05 April 2009 12:58:13 Musachy Barroso wrote: > yeah I thought about that, but I would rather keep it simple. So far > this is the only case where I have needed loading order, and I don't > think it will be common at all. > > musachy > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Chris Pratt <thechrispr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Wouldn't it be better to describe the interdependencies of the plug-ins > > and let struts build a directed graph to automatically load them in the > > proper order. Otherwise, someone is going to put plugin1 at order=5 and > > plugin2 at order=6 then plugin3 will come along and need to be in > > between. There would no reason that the dependencies would "have" to be > > requirements, some of the dependencies could be "soft" (i.e. If the > > spring libraries are available, they're a soft dependency of struts, > > meaning they should be loaded first). Then you would have something more > > like this: > > > > In convention: > > > > <dependencies> > > <dependency optional="true">OSGi</dependency> > > <dependencies> > > > > (*Chris*) > > -- Wes Wannemacher Author - Struts 2 In Practice Includes coverage of Struts 2.1, Spring, JPA, JQuery, Sitemesh and more http://www.manning.com/wannemacher --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
