On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:30:46 -0400, Rick Reumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael McGrady wrote the following on 9/20/2004 7:52 PM: > > > I have a real concern that Struts is going to continue to be bloated > > with what are not Struts, not part of the framework, but what are > > instead really very useful uses of Struts. DispatchAction and its > > progeny are just one example of this. > > I would disagree with some of this. Since a DispatchAction can't really > stand on its own (unlike the commons packages do) I really think it > belongs part of Struts. I don't see any reason not to give people the > options from within the framework (I no longer like to use DynaForms but > I'm not really opposed to them being an option). On top of this, if I > was new developer I would be quite frustrated if I had to go find a ton > of optional packages just to accomplish some common/useful things. I > actually don't really find Struts that bloated. The jar isn't that big, > so I'm confused what the concern is? What is it that you find being > introduced that is currently bloating struts? Over the past 2(maybe > more?) years there haven't even been that many 'major' changes to Struts > (a nice bunch of improvements but no major bloat that I can see). > > -- > Rick
I *strongly* agree with Rick on DispatchAction.. Especially from the "new developer"s perspective, Rick's words are quite right. org.apache.struts.actions package contains only a handul of classes which are *required* in my opinion. I think the only package can be considered as bloat is the tiles package. It should not be in the default package, it can stand on its own and there are many alternatives. Also, from the number of messages about tiles in this list, I think it brings more problems than it solves. I have to say that I only tried it once and hated. /tb. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
