Thanks for your clearification. I think that would be a good solution. I wasn't seeing the trees for the forest :-(
Ted Husted wrote: >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). > >>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. > -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
