Hi, I don't think throwing away the namespaces logic is a good idea - if we do it, all the users will have to migrate in almost the same manner as from S1 to S2. For most of them it will be a real pain so because of that I'm against that.
There is already "slashes in action names" mechanism which should be extended to match your needs or maybe we should introduce something other/better. Another thing is that the usage of annotations should be treated as exception (someone already said that) - if you clutter your actions with the annotations it's obvious smell that something went wrong. The annotations are there to allow narrow config/flow to your specific use case where convention doesn't fit well. And I like logical grouping of actions in the same namespace and if you see some weaknesses we must improve how namespaces work not throwing them away. I don't have any real use cases now as I don't use S2 on daily basis so if any of the aboves is a mistake please let me know :) I don't get the problem with interceptors, what's wrong with defining few stacks and use them across different namespaces? Regards -- Łukasz + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
