On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really, but so far some people think we should support it on > others think it is a bad idea. Right. But my point is that building consensus, while it may take longer, provides a better basis on which to move forward as a team, while a vote has the potential to disenfranchise the "losers" of that vote. In my mind, a vote should be a last resort rather than the first choice of how to resolve a disagreement. -- Martin Cooper > > musachy > > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >> As far as I can see the only dependency between REST and Codebehind is > >> this class: > >> > >> > >> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/struts2/trunk/plugins/rest/src/main/java/org/apache/struts2/rest/ControllerClasspathPackageProvider.java?view=markup > >> > >> which all it does is use Codebehind to detect actions that end in > >> "Controller", and optionally disable package scanning. These 2 > >> settings could be constants declared in Codebehind and overwritten by > >> REST and the hard dependency would be gone(that's what I did with > >> Convention in order to plug REST in). > >> > >> I think the problem with REST is easy to fix; one blocker down. Now, > >> about supporting Codebehind from Convention, any other opinions > >> (before pulling a vote on it)? > > > > > > Why a vote? Is this so contentious that you don't believe we can reach > > consensus? > > > > -- > > Martin Cooper > > > > > >> > >> musachy > >> > >> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Jeromy Evans > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Jeromy Evans wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I wouldn't rush into this decision. > >> >> > >> >> Users of the REST plugin require @Namespace, @Result, etc > annotations. > >> >> Creating a duplicate set of annotations with the same purpose is not > >> >> sensible. > >> >> > >> >> It's appropriate that the REST plugin has a dependency on the plugin > >> that > >> >> auto-populates the Configuration, despite the contrary statement on > the > >> >> plugins page. > >> >> Merging the REST plugin with Convention is also not possible as the > >> >> implementation of ActionInvocation and ActionMapper are entirely > >> different > >> >> (the conventions cannot currently be mixed). > >> >> > >> >> There are several issues here: > >> >> - creating a Configuration (via XML, via Annotation) > >> >> - ActionMapping (no problems here, each plugin sets up their own) > >> >> - ActionInvocation (standard or RESTful; they are incompatible) > >> >> - handling unknowns > >> >> > >> >> One situation could be that Configuration is separate from > Convention; > >> so > >> >> the developer can choose how the Configuration is setup and then > choose > >> >> which mapping & invocation, and unknown handling approach to use. > >> However > >> >> that would require another refactoring. > >> >> > >> >> I think making REST dependent on the Convention plugin is the way to > go, > >> >> such that the Configuration is created by Convention (but customized > for > >> >> REST *Controller class) and extended with the REST ActionMapper and > >> >> RestActionInvocation. > >> > > >> > On further thought, if it is possible to split up the Convention > plugin, > >> > then it could be solved like so: > >> > - Zero Configuration: for all annotations relating to the setup of > >> > Configuration (merge from Convention) > >> > - CodeBehind: implements action mapping, invocation, unknown handling, > >> index > >> > handling (the other half of Convention) > >> > - REST alternative implementation of action mapping, invocation, > unknown > >> > handling > >> > > >> > Ideally then REST can be used with ZeroConf or XMLConf, or CodeBehind > >> used > >> > with ZeroConf or XMLConf. Sweet. > >> > > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
