Thanks for the responses. I appreciate knowing how namespaces are used. So it sounds to me (correct me if wrong) that namespaces provided two purposes: (1) a convenient way of chopping off the first part of the URI and (2) namespace level interceptor. I think that's pretty minimal functionality. Without namespaces, you would just add the first part of the URI back to your actions and link to a globally defined interceptor stack. Is it all that different?
Cheers, Paul On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Kofford, C. Todd <tkoff...@ku.edu> wrote: > > We use namespaces when we have an application that runs both as a portlet > & as a standalone web application. In the former case the portlet > interceptor sits at the top of the stack & the latter is just our standard > interceptor stack, and we use namespaces to differentiate action > invocations between the 2 types. > > Maybe there's a better way to accomplish this, but it's just the way we've > always done things. If this were to change, we would have work to do. > > -- > Todd Kofford > tkoff...@ku.edu > > > > On Dec 12, 2014, at 1:54 AM, rgm <r...@rgm.nu> wrote: > > > > To me it's valuable for keeping an interceptor stack separate for api > > requests. > > > > /api/v1/people/list > > Json result > > > > Vs > > > > /listpeople.action > > Web / template result > >> On Dec 9, 2014 2:52 PM, "Paul Benedict" <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> One concept I never really liked in S2 are namespaces. I never found a > good > >> reason to logically group actions together with common interceptor > setup. > >> Rather I always find myself in the situation where the interceptor > stack is > >> globally set and actions have one-off changes. And I also never liked > how > >> namespaces limit the scope of result types. > >> > >> Am I right or is this feature really valuable? > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > >
