On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Martin Cooper wrote:
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:46:20 -0700
> From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 'Struts Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: cvs commit:
> jakarta-struts/src/share/org/apache/struts/action ActionServlet.java
>
> Well that's kinda interesting. ;-)
>
> Since the use of custom additions to the config file will cause validation
> against the DTD to fail, should we deliberately turn off validation if this
> option is being used (i.e. ignore the value of the 'validating' init param
> and always treat it as false)?
>
I'm having conversations with the Stxx guys about exactly this issue.
They really really really want to be able to run on top of a stock 1.1
release, and I'd like to see if we can accomodate that.
Right now, turning off validation has been disabled because we rely on
some of the default values (so that we can avoid references to
Action.XXXXX constants in the config classes, to help keep them
serializable .... yadda yadda). There are alternatives to this that I'm
looking into -- like copying all the manifest constants into an
org.apache.struts.Constants file and having Action.XXXXX refer to those
for backwards compatibility.
Even if we have to keep validation, there are some (unpleasant but usable)
options, like maintaining a separate DTD that was a superset of the
standard one. What I'd really like to find is a way that an existing DTD
can be extended (say, add the <transform> element nested inside a
<forward> that the Stxx guys want) without having to start from scratch.
Any ideas?
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
