I think using Stripes as you've previously outlined without using CleanURIs is a good idea. I figured that that is the baseline, and that you are now proposing a delta which in my opinion is a mistake.
I've essentially been rehashing the same argument all over again - Stripes CleanURIs do not fit the bill. I just grew tired of typing the same stuff again, so I became categorical. All the arguments are available in the previous emails. /Janne On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:43:21AM -0400, Andrew Jaquith wrote: > Janne -- > > I was expecting constructive -- rather than categorical -- comments > from you. I did not perceive that you had many positive suggestions, > and that disappoints me. > > I will respond in detail later, but not today. > > Andrew > > On Jul 9, 2008, at 3:01 AM, Janne Jalkanen wrote: > > >>I actually prefer using the '/' since it sideways fits into my > >>existing > >>URL schema. My schema: > >> > >> baseURL collectionHierarchy [objectId] action ['?' parameters] > >> > >>Janne's scheme (from what I understand): > >> > >> baseURL [collectionHierarchy/objectId] action ['?' parameters] > > > >Close, but no. The DefaultURLConstructor schema is > > > >baseURL action [collectionHierarchy/objectId] ['?' parameters]. > > > >What I am just arguing that the schema that you want *requires* > >code. Or mod_rewrite. Can't be done with Stripes automatically. > > > >>be resolvable, which in this system means an absolute URL. If > >>Stripes is > >>capable of parsing an arbitrary depth collection hierarchy (or > >>directory > >>structure, if that's what we're essentially mirroring), then that's > >>fine. > > > >No, it cannot. > > > >>I really hope we don't have to use some ugly syntax for that. I don't > >>have a requirement for arbitrary depth at all, nor can I foresee > >>that. > >>It's just too ugly and complicated for most users. Wikis have been > >>flat > >>since their inception and I'm fine with them being flat. > > > >The point is that you don't have to use them. However, for some > >cases, the flat namespace is a problem (like the Weblog plugin - > >currently we have to rely on naming conventions to identify pages, > >and you know how much of a mess that becomes. Would be much nicer > >to just embed them as subpages for the current page.) > > > >>It's really hard to imagine that annotations could be less flexible > >>than > >>code. > > > >They are, since everything in them needs to be a static value. It > >cannot be recomputed at runtime. > > > >>I don't see that as a barrier to adoption. And if we know we're > >>going to > >>using Stripes in 3.0 I can't see any reason not to *begin* to use > >>it now. > > > >There is, since it requires a massive change to the internals of > >JSPWiki (or else it won't be useful). > > > >/Janne
