On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:34:13 -0800 (PST), David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I agree with Don's assessment, but wanted to add an FYI note -- Shale > > does zero-config for #3 (because the mapping between a JSP page and > > the corresponding ViewController is implicit), and doesn't require #1 > > unless you need it for doing Commons Validator stuff. > > > > Simpler is definitely better. > > But is adding yet another framework to Struts simplifying anything for the > user or just for us developers? If we add Spring, we would need to know > the following to write a Struts webapp: > 1. struts-config.xml > 2. validator-rules.xml > 3. spring.xml (or whatever they call the config file) > 4. possibly tiles-config.xml > 5. possibly jsf config files > > How is learning and remembering up to 5 different configuration files > better for the user? If I was put in this position, I would seriously > consider other ways of writing Java webapps. > > David
The current Shale version of struts-mailreader requires *one* configuration file (WEB-INF/faces-config.xml), and adding client side validation and/or Tiles *might* add one for each (although that is not a given). For example, Spring config files are only needed if you want to use Spring in addition to JSF -- if you are satisfied with the "setter injection" support that JSF already provides, you don't need Spring for basic IoC functionality. Tell me again why it is ok for Stuts 1.x to require more configuration files than Shale does :-) Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
