+1! Pat is a god! (He told me to say that so I'm blindly worshipping him.) Actually... I still vote +1, and Pat's just another frood in PsychoDelusionLand.
--------------------------------------------------------- Joseph B. Ottinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://enigmastation.com IT Consultant On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Patrick Lightbody wrote: > No, it's the same problem that we had in the past (before > GenericDispatcher). The solution that was proposed is to use the > redirect.action (when I get it working that is). And for 1.3 I think that's > fine. > > I was thinking about this some more and actually, maybe consolidating > views.properties and actions.xml is actually the _wrong_ way to go. Instead, > why not do something similar to what happens today, except make a few > changes: > > - keep global configuration (a la webwork.properties) seperate from action > configuration (a la views.properties) > - allow the configuration (XMLActionConfiguration vs > PropertiesConfiguration) to be specified in the global configuration, or > default to PropertiesConfiguration if not given (so things stay simple, > right?) > - Change the configuration architecture so that the example I posted in my > weblog is supported. This basically means that internally, "Foo!someCommand" > means nothing. Instead, the configuration (again, this is internally) > actually is generic enough like the config I gave in my weblog. Then > PropertiesConfiguration can read views.properties like it always did, and > translate "Foo!someCommand" as "the class is Foo and pass a property > key/value pair of command=someCommand in before executing". > > Before you shoot it down as overly complex, remember that externally, things > are as simple as always, but power users (like me) can write a better > XMLConfiguration that takes advantage of the new, powerful, (internal) > configuration architecture. > > -Pat > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Maurice Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:41 AM > Subject: Re: Configuration (was RE: [OS-webwork] Webwork Security > Requirements) > > > > > > > > Patrick Lightbody wrote: > > > > >As for parsing whether the result is an action or a view, it's not that > it's > > >non-trivial, it's that it's impossible, since the user might want either > > >behavior! > > > > > It better not be impossible. All that GenericDispatcher code you added > > tries to do that today, and requires the ability to do so to function > > correctly. If it's impossible, I can't see how we can include it in the > > upcoming 1.3 release and have zero defects. > > > > -Maurice > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in > > Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be > > fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in > Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be > fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
