> -----Original Message----- > From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > But, that data structure could be created on each call to the > configuration, i.e. there's a deterministic way to get it from the > registered package contexts. So, in *effect* it *is* a cache.
Sort of, but it's not used that way. > > E.g.: > <xwork> > <!-- Register subapp "foo" which uses XML config --> > <application name="foo"> <param > name="config.xml">foo.xml</param> </application> > <!-- Register subapp "bar" which uses DB config --> > <application name="bar"> <param name="config.db">java:/BarDS</param> > </application> > </xwork> > What happened to the idea of breaking up the config file with an entity resolver? Then you could have &package1 &package2 This could be another way of breaking up the config file. But I agree it would be good to be able to have different configuration provider types and have them pulled together into one app. > Something like that. I think that the "top" needs to have a > well-defined > format though, in XML, similar to how web.xml works. As I said in an > earlier post sometimes you want flexibility and sometimes you want > rigidity. This is a place for rigidity. > > /Rickard ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
