I'm fine with that; there is already a provider interface in XWork--not sure where the property file config comes from, haven't dug in.
A property file wouldn't work really well as a struts.xml replacement. I guess I just don't see the value in a properties file at this point. I was planning on doing a Groovy configurer like its ConfigurationSlurper (or whatever it's called) to better reflect the config param hierarchies, possibly merging it with the XML config, but haven't given it much thought yet. d. On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Chris Pratt <thechrispr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wonder if making configuration pluggable would make sense. Then we could > provide XML and Properties configuration plugins and others could add > Database backed or Groovy configuration plugins if desired. > (*Chris *) > On Dec 11, 2011 10:20 AM, "Dave Newton" <davelnew...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Maurizio Cucchiara >> <mcucchi...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> 1) Can we drop the `.properties` config and move to XML exclusively? >> > >> > Could you delve deeper into the matter? Personally I have not ever >> > used properties stuff, but it is my personal taste (though I see very >> > few people use it), I would like to understand why properties file are >> > a good candidate to deprecation (I assume that one key point is make >> > cleaner the configuration/troubleshooting). >> >> We recommend XML configuration, and having multiple configuration >> points is confusing. I just don't see the point. >> >> d. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
