> Packaging I would define as the ability to create 'components' consisting > of > WW actions, configuration for those actions and the views. With Velocity > (loaded from classpath) views, abstracted common view code and > componentised > actions.xml, what else do we need to do?
Mike is bringing up a very important issue imho. It should be possible to create 'components' as he describes. We'll end up having probably a meta-inf/component.xml file which acts as the glue for view/action/templates/blabla aspects of a component. And then of course separate action.xml/view.xml/blabla.xml for each aspect. I think it's good, it looks like Tapestry's jwc file which really acts like a palette where you mix different pluggable components to create new components. This way you can create a reusable shopping component which has all the actions (with validation/security/persistence aspects of each configurable via the xml file) and view and other aspects of the components configured properly in the xml file. As Mike said this is where Tapestry really shines. Tapestry's main points are 'components' and the <span/>-based approach for the view part. What WW is really good at is the action/controller part. So with Rickard's proposal we'll have even a better configurable/pluggable/reusable architecture for the actions. Then add 'components' to the mix and you get to another higher level of reusability. That'll be kick ass! Ara. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
