[ http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376?page=comments#action_37710 ]
Ted Husted commented on WW-1376: -------------------------------- Ultimately, I think the goal should be to do with XWork what we do with Spring. I don't envision needing or wanting to plug another "action engine" into the framework the way we might want to plug in another "object factory", but the goal should be the same: Put the dependency behind a facade so that we can make it easier to use and (technically) pluggable. Since we don't use the Spring DTD directly, it would follow that we shouldn't use the XWork DTD directly too. People who know they are using Spring, can choose to use Spring directly in an application too. Likewise, people who want to use XWork directly can do that too. I'm still looking forward to trying to use XWork as a business facade, outside of Struts 2. Who knows, maybe one day we will offer an empty ready-to-use xwork.xml again, the way we offer an ready-to-use Spring configuration now. :) > Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: WW-1376 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376 > Project: Struts 2 > Type: Improvement > Components: Configuration > Reporter: Don Brown > Assignee: Don Brown > Fix For: 2.0.0 > > As part of the renaming and WW cleanup process, I think Struts should have > its own configuration DTD, so users would use it and not the XWork one. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
