On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote:
> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:13:19 -0400
> From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
>
> 10/16/2002 5:01:55 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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.
>
> I'm not talking about anyting to do with modules cooperating or not. I'm just saying
>that the supplemental
> Struts configuration files (for Validator and Tiles) can be specified as a list, but
>the main struts-config
> cannot be. In my experience, many teams just want multiple configuration files,
>period. This gives people what
> they want (multiple configs), without giving them something else they might not want
>(Chinese walls within the
> application).
>
>
Don't have time to dive into the substantive technical details today, but
in general I'm OK with a strategy of comma-delimited list of
struts-config.xml resource files used to configure a single app module
(consistent with the Tiles and Validators styles). I presume this just
means running as many Digester.parse() calls as you need, and no other
fundamental changes, right?
Craig
> >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.
>
> The purpose of a Tiles Definition is utilimately to include tiles, which means we
>need to specify a path to the
> tile. If we can mark some of the paths to be application-relative, then the modules
>can share tiles.
>
>
> >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.
>
> That would be cool, but it doesn't need to be in this release.
>
> Both the ActionMappings and the Definitions should support this type of extending in
>some future release
> (probably 1.2+).
>
> -Ted.
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
