On 12-12-26 05:18 AM, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > On Wed, 2012-12-26 at 10:56 +0100, Mick Semb Wever wrote: >> People who want spring resource loading in tiles might as well >> just use spring-webmvc-3.2 instead. >> >> >> Any objection Nicolas if i go ahead with these changes to >> tiles-request-servlet-wildcard ? >> - deprecate tiles-request-servlet-wildcard, >> - deprecate WildcardServletApplicationContext >> - make WildcardServletApplicationContext an empty subclass of >> SpringWildcardServletTilesApplicationContext
That looks very similar to my own plan. Actually I'm sure I've already done something similar in my unmerged changes. For Tiles 3.1 I'd like to separate concerns inside the ApplicationContext facade: storing attributes on one side and locating resources on the other. See TREQ-17 and https://github.com/nlebas/tiles-request/blob/master/tiles-request-api/src/main/java/org/apache/tiles/request/AbstractApplicationContext.java. Concerning WildcardServletApplicationContext itself, this is my current plan: https://github.com/nlebas/tiles-request/blob/master/tiles-request-servlet-wildcard/src/main/java/org/apache/tiles/request/servlet/wildcard/WildcardServletApplicationContext.java > > The question is whether folk will object to having spring-webmvc and > everything it includes included as opposed to just spring-io. > I'm presuming no. From what i've seen people are for spring dependencies > as a whole or they are not. And here we'll better define that. > I think I'd rather leave that choice to the achitect of the application. I feel it is not Tiles' role to make that choice. But I must admit I don't care much about a deprecated module... Nick.
