I don't think it would be necessary to break backward compatibility. One
approach that maintains backward compatability is to define a new child
element directly off the root <struts-config> element in the struts-config
file. Here is an example:
<struts-config>
<parent-modules>
<parent-module name="module1">
<!-- beans 1 and 2 from module1 -->
<form-beans>
<form-bean name="bean1"/>
<form-bean name="bean2"/>
</form-beans>
<!-- all forwards from module1 -->
<global-forwards/>
<!-- all exceptions from module2 -->
<global-exceptions/>
<message-resources/>
</parent-module>
<parent-module name="module2">
<!-- all beans from module2 -->
<form-beans/>
<global-forwards/>
<message-resources/>
</parent-module>
</parent-modules>
<!-- rest of config follows -->
</struts-config>
This would allow me to define the "application" notion I want for my project
by using a single <parent-module> element. It would also be flexible enough
to accomodate users with different needs.
Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Germuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Resource Bundle Prototyping
> At 12:30 -0400 8/6/03, Sgarlata Matt wrote:
> >Or did you mean I'm not modularizing my app well? Maybe so, but I still
> >think a notion of a Struts "application" could be beneficial.
>
> No, I meant nothing like that.
>
> >IMHO, the conceptual issue is that there seems to be no
> >notion of a Struts "application" reflected in the code because all the
> >modules are peers with equal status.
>
> I'm pretty sure this was an explicit design intention, although the
> main reason may have been to make backwards compatibility more
> manageable (or maybe not -- I can't cite any place where this was
> discussed; I just have vague recollections). From reading the lists,
> it's clear that many people intuitively expect modules to be less
> walled off from each other.
>
> Maybe a smarter Modularization, but one which might break some
> compatibility, could be targetted for a 1.5 release, or some
> mid-point between 2.0, which has a lot of bigger changes marked for
> it.
>
> Or maybe compatibility can be preserved anyway.
>
> Joe
>
> --
> --
> Joe Germuska
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://blog.germuska.com
> "If nature worked that way, the universe would crash all the time."
> --Jaron Lanier
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
