"Joe Germuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > At 11:37 PM -0500 1/19/04, Ted Husted wrote: > >In reference to > > > ><http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18111> > > > >which I also gathered under > > > ><http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25855>. > > > >The suggestion is to add "contextRelative" to rewrite, as we just > >did for img. The usecase being the sharing of common resources > >between modules. > > > >Since rewrite extends link, I'm tempted to put the contextRelative > >code into link. This change would seem to allow direct links between > >modules. > > > >I don't remember if we discussed that before or not, so wanted to > >send up a flare before proceeding. > > > >The one other remaining task is a fixing the pagePattern for img > ><http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23127>. > > > >If we decide to allow contextRelative links, as a refactoring, I may > >try a base "PathTag" to encapsulate the contextRelative and > >pagePattern code. Link, Rewrite, Img and so forth, can then extend > >"PathTag". > > > >These two tasks (#18111 and #23127) could conceivably be wrapped up > >tomorrow, meaning we could roll 1.2.0 this weekend, if that sounds > >all right. :) > > I can't think of any reason to block direct links between modules; I > can't speak for others, but our use cases for modules turn out to be > much less strictly segregated than was apparently the intent of the > original design, given how complicated certain things turn out to be.
The original intent of the current module design was to provide an alternative way of handling multiple independent Struts apps in the same web app. No more, no less. It was intentionally limited, so that we could gain some experience with how people would want to use it, with the understanding that we could build on that in later releases. There are certainly many, many things that people might want to do with their apps that might be usefully handled by extensions to our current module concept. However, there are also many, many ways in which we could extend the module concept. Jumping around between modules arbitrarily *might* be useful to some people in extending what they can do with modules today, but at the same time, it might also allow ways of circumventing structure that other people want to impose on modules. In other words, I *can* think of reasons to block direct links between modules, and I wouldn't want to see that enabled as a standard feature. Making it optional / configurable might be a viable alternative, at least for now, if other people really feel a need for this feature in 1.2.0. -- Martin Cooper > > I can use context-relative html:rewrite as soon as you check it in -- > I was just wrestling with its absence last night. Also, I would > argue that the "switch action" is too much overhead for its own good > -- and your proposed change would allow us to skip it also. > > Joe > > -- > Joe Germuska > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blog.germuska.com > "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them > the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and > nobody thinks of complaining." > -- Jef Raskin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
