Ted Husted wrote: >10/16/2002 4:03:01 PM, "V. Cekvenich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Can you wait till 1.2 Ted? >> >All that I'm saying is that we should support specifying a list of struts-config >files, as we do for the >validator and tiles configs. This way people could split up the config files without >buying into modules. Craig >wanted to pursue modules to support URI-independance, but now that we done that I >think we should support the >obvious solution too. > >The only other thing I meant to say is that if we're going to call Tiles 1.1 >compliant, it should have the same >contextRelative property we see on the ActionForward. I didn't mean to say that there >should be a gobal Tiles >config or anything like that. > Sorry, I misunderstood - wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I suppose that old saying about the hammer and nail may apply to me here (it's not all I have but it tends to be how I view this scenario)
>In both cases, I'm just saying we should consistently complete what we started. Beta >are for finding oversights >and inconsistencies as well as malfunctions. > >But if everyone is on board for cutting a quick 1.2 release to catch issues we are >postponing now, I'm willing >to play along (again). > I think it's reasonable we would fix things to be independent now, as Martin and Craig have suggested, and then look at making modules cooperate next. As far as I'm concerned, we can wait to convert to 2.3 until later - I don't see why that would be a major issue. That change alone would (or, at least could) have an enormous impact on how things are done as I see it. There should be a release primarily dedicated to that - but I see it coming *after* we're finished cleaning up the mess we're intentionally leaving here. Context-relative? Ok, but you have no sharing in that scenario. The contextRelative approach just says "interpret this as relative to the application root path" - I don't see how that makes sense here, but I'm surely missing something. In that case, you're letting whichever module you just transferred control to handle the request. With tiles (I think) what is desirable (what I understood you were after) would be to say "oh - this definition extends that one, but *that* one happens to be in a different module". Am I on the wrong page here? I know this is my goal - that's what I'm after. How would "contextRelative" be interpreted on a tiles definition? So far as the multiple, delimited config files goes, I have no opinion. I wouldn't find it helpful - but I have nothing against it. +0 >My only concern is that post 1.1, we will also want to talk about things like servlet >2.3 support. My concern is >that those discussions might become an excuse to postpone finishing what we (only) >started here. But with more >committers on board, perhaps we can afford to work on more than one code stream now. > I think we should clean our mess up before we make a new one too. I'd be -1 for supporting 2.3 until after we have done that. Is having 2.2 as a base requirement really holding us back that much? Ok - we could use filters. And? How much of our user-base is *still* "trapped" on 2.2 spec boxes? Now, compare to that how many people would really benefit from having a filter in place. The only benefit I see is the ability to intercept JSP pages and setup the request for them. Yes, I suppose we could integrate pseudo-CMA too, but ... >-Ted. > -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
