I created a proposal page on the wiki for this:

http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/S2WIKI/Convention%2CCodebehind+and+REST+2.3

I also opened a ticket for fixing the depenency between
REST->Codebehind, which I don't see why it should exists:

https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-2667

After taking care of that issue, and if we get to agree on the new
"unknown-handler-stack" (nobody has said anything pro/against yet), we
are done with the blocking concerns. (I think)

musachy

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is yet another idea, this one assumes that multiple
> UnknowHandler(s) can be stacked (which I am prototyping). If we modify
> ControllerClasspathPackageProvider, so it delegates to an instance of
> ClasspathPackageProvider instead of extending it, and using reflection
> for the delegation of those few methods, we could have a nice setup:
>
> 1. Applications using Codebehind
> No changes to Codebehind were done, they will continue to work
>
> 2.Applications using Codebehind + REST
> REST ControllerClasspathPackageProvider will find Codebehind's
> ClasspathPackageProvider in the classpath, and delegate to it using
> reflection. These applications will continue to work without any
> modification.
>
> 3. Applications using REST + Convention
> REST ControllerClasspathPackageProvider won't find Codebehind's
> ClasspathPackageProvider in the classpath so it won't do anything.
> REST will work on top of Convention (this works fine).
>
> Plugins will be standalone, like they are now, and backward
> compatibility will be kept. As a side effect, REST could be used with
> XML configuration without Codebehind being in the classpath. I know
> reflection is not a very elegant solution, but it would be temporary
> until Codebehind is phased out, a few versions later.
>
> musachy
>



-- 
"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]

Reply via email to