I hear your points. In addition, I noticed that namespaces don't translate well with annotations. It might just be more consistent to configure on a per action basis just by specifying the interceptor stack to use.
Also, I find namespaces most frustrating when I rename URLs and have to move around the config to put the XML action configs in the right namespaces. On Dec 9, 2014 2:57 PM, "Dave Newton" <davelnew...@gmail.com> wrote: > I used package-level interceptors from time to time, mostly for really easy > auth interceptors applied to chunks of pages. There was some other use-case > I had, but I can't recall what it was; it was related to some data > transformations. > > It also provides a mechanism for grouping actions together in a logical way > w/o having to rely on consistent URL naming convention that can be > fat-fingered pretty easily, but I'm not sure that counts as "really > valuable". > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > One concept I never really liked in S2 are namespaces. I never found a > good > > reason to logically group actions together with common interceptor setup. > > Rather I always find myself in the situation where the interceptor stack > is > > globally set and actions have one-off changes. And I also never liked how > > namespaces limit the scope of result types. > > > > Am I right or is this feature really valuable? > > > > > > -- > e: davelnew...@gmail.com > m: 908-380-8699 > s: davelnewton_skype > t: @dave_newton <https://twitter.com/dave_newton> > b: Bucky Bits <http://buckybits.blogspot.com/> > g: davelnewton <https://github.com/davelnewton> > so: Dave Newton <http://stackoverflow.com/users/438992/dave-newton> >
