Eh... ViewMapper is a bad name (ViewMappers exist in WW already and do something else), but yes, you are mostly right in what i'm trying to explain. As I just said, I'll get a concrete example + code in place to show off my point.
-Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Ottinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:42 PM Subject: [OS-webwork] Pat Lightbody's new configuration proposal > Here's how I see what Pat is saying, if it makes it any clearer: > > Have WW internally use a.. configuration factory. This factory will look > up something in webwork.properties, and if it's not there, have a default. > The factory returns a valid ViewMapper (okay, crappy name, sue me for all > the frobnigators I've got) given a request-of-some-kind. > > Now, the value in webwork.properties resolves to a classname, such as > com.localcompany.webwork.MyCustomViewMapper, which will implement the > ViewMapper interface by definition. > > If the value isn't there, WebWork would use the DefaultViewMapperFactory, > which looks for actions.xml, and - presuming actions.xml exists - returns > the XMLViewMapper. If actions.xml is NOT there, it uses the handy-dandy > PropertyViewMapper, which looks for views.properties and voila! (Note that > I'm making an assumption about view mappings here, one that I'm not sure > is correct: it could be that the default view mapping looks in actions.xml > FIRST and THEN views.properties for every request. If this is, indeed, the > case, then alter this paragraph accordingly. Again, sue me for all the > widgets in my possession.) > > If done properly, this means that current users might NEVER KNOW they have > this capability, outside of reading the sure-to-come copious docs on > configuring view mappers. This is a Good Thing. > > On the other hand, people who want to use the FrobnigatingViewMapper > (which uses a db+LDAP to map views and actions) now have an easy path to > get their killer ViewMapper working. They have docs, naturally, so they > can implement the interface, add the optional property to > webwork.properties, and they're off to the races. > > I think this is a win. > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Joseph B. Ottinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://enigmastation.com IT Consultant > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in > Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be > fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
