that sounds pretty reasonable to me. if you are up for the task, go for it. 2.2 is far in the horizon and this would be a good time for this kind of stuff.
musachy On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Christian Stone <xt...@stonescape.net> wrote: > The first reference is just to look at JIRA issues regarding flexibility, > such as WW-2865 > > And flexibility is what I am speaking about. The new SiteMesh allows a more > tiled (recursive) decorator workflow, and allows for the mixing of > technologies (freemarker, velocity, and jsp). Using a filter architecture > means tying struts codebase to both the details of Freemarker AND SiteMesh. > Using the servlet model means not being bound by changes in the SiteMesh > filters/code at all. You could use Freemarker, Velocity, and JSP in > SiteMesh (all together), not tie yourself to the SiteMesh codebase with the > plugin, and still have all the benefits you have now. > > In one case, you can write a filter, and have to re-implement a whole bunch > of SiteMesh code. This code has been completely rewritten for SiteMesh 3, > so the plugin work will have to be redone again for it. Since we are > overriding the dispatcher, you also have to include what file extensions > will map to Velocity, and Freemarker and implement all the logic that the > request dispatcher uses. Integration of Velocity, Freemarker, and JSP will > need to happen, because otherwise Struts will cripple SiteMesh 3 (worse than > it does with SiteMesh 2). > > On the other hand, you can override the Servlets for Velocity and > Freemarker, and in that case (at least with the Freemarker one), there are > great code points where you can inject your mappings without having to > reinvent anything. It seems to be very clean cut. If any of the two > technologies changes, likely the servlets will still work, as the functions > we override are specifically there for customers to override. We won't have > to respond to SiteMesh changes, and we won't be broken at all with respect > to the SiteMesh design. > > Really, even with SiteMesh 2, there is a strong argument for taking the > route of servlets instead of filters for tying into Freemarker. > > I hope this is all reasonable. I am typing this hastily in hopes that it > will give you what you need without delay... > > -- Christian > > > > > > On Oct 22, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote: > >> I don't see any advantage in using neither of them, but I am not up to >> date with Sitemesh 3, could you explain "More specifically, given the >> path of SiteMesh and how it will be mixing velocity and freemarker in >> SiteMesh 3, it seems that the best path would be to use the Servlet >> model and not the filter model in the future" a little, and why you >> think that using a servlet would be that much better? >> >> musachy > > -- > _,--" > cws `-._ ________-_______ "---- > _----'--'--------------------------------'--'----_ > //_| | \ Christian Stone, Software Engineer / | |_\\ > (_____|_|__= xt...@stonescape.net =__|_|_____) > _\_____=__ http://xtian.stonescape.net/ ___/_ > \/-(o)-~~-(o)-~~-(o)-`------'-(o)-~~-(o)-~~-(o)-\/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
