Bill said: > Thanks, Geir! I was wondering about the history of the View Toolbox vs. > the DVSL one. I had been under the impression that the View Toolbox was > implemented more recently because it was XML based. Was rather puzzled > that the DVSL toolbox was just a properties file rather than being XML > based.
i really do need to check out dvsl. at least, so to better understand what ya'll are talking about. [snip] > > A great example of application differences are scopes... Darn important > > (sadly) in the servlet environment, but utterly irrelevant in Ant-driven > > tasks. > > Despite that, the XML used to declare tools for the DVSL Task could be > made nearly the same as that for Velocity Context tools. The only > difference being that there would be no way to specify a scope attribute > to the DVSL Task. having a common xml format for DVSL and VelocityViewServlet toolboxes sounds good to me. my issue is primarily with having a common tool management/factory system. there may well be some aspects that can be abstracted into a generic class once a common xml is established, but i'd rather avoid dealing with any sort of magic interfaces in it. we should leave dealing with such tool interfaces to managers specifically tailored to the various environments. (i.e. such things as the concept of 'scope' do not belong in a generic tool factory/manager class) Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
