--- Don Brown wrote: > On 11/20/07, Brian Pontarelli wrote: >> * Should we leverage the action.packages >> configuration or a naming convention >> for finding action packages? >> (I prefer convention) > I'm not so sure about this one. Would we > do something like stripes where we scan > for the 'actions' subpackage? I don't > see the 'actionPackages' init parameter > as too burdensome.
I'd prefer having either option available, primarily because I don't always get to determine the class hierarchy or class naming conventions. >> * Should we support package level annotations for >> things like base result location, parent package, >> new result types, interceptors, etc.? >> (I say yes) > How would this work? Would you put the annotation > on any class in the package and it would magically > apply for all actions in the package, like how > codebehind works now? I'd think that package-level annotations should go in the package-info.java; that's what it's for, more or less. d. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
