Martin Cooper wrote: >I actually think there are a number of rather independent ideas here, which >should probably be treated as such. > >1) Resource sharing. In some application scenarios, it is desirable to share >(some) data sources, message resources, etc., across all of the modules in >the application. This relates more to application-wide (as opposed to >module-wide) configuration than it does to module inheritance. > Yes - possibly, but not necessarily.
>2) Inter-module communication. On the surface, sharing "truly global" global >forwards seems similar to (1) above. The difference, however, is that there >is now explicit interaction between modules, and in particular, a shared >resource which "knows" about the modules which are part of the application. > ... but why would it have to be a shared resource? ... or are you calling the default sub-app a "shared resource"? >3) Hierarchical applications. This *might* be a scenario in which the >default module becomes a "framework" that other modules plug into, but it >might be something else entirely. For example, there is no real reason to >treat the default module as the root of the hierarchy. > It just seemed a natural fit - but, ok. My reasoning was in the way we key things: Same key in request (for current module) and application (for default) makes it easy to chain this way. >As you know, I happen >to have implemented a hierarchical app that way (actually, it turned out to >be a directed graph, but I'm not about to explain that :), and I fear that >my spouting about that may have unduly influenced others' thinking about how >hierarchical applications should be built. Just because I made it work >doesn't mean it's the right/best way to do it! > Don't take all the blame upon yourself :-) I'd been "feeling" that way every since I really started experimenting with "what sub-apps really meant". You did, I suppose, reaffirm that those were "good feelings" - but they didn't originate with you ;-) >Note that while a hierarchical application may take advantage of (1) and >(2), it may also achieve its goals in an entirely different way. That's why >I think these ideas are largely independent. > Yes, but I think this is a "natural fit". Of course, the way you say that makes me think you have a card you're holding til the last hand is dealt ;-) >In any case, I agree with Craig that this is a post-1.1 topic. As I've said >before, we really need to get the modular application concept out there and >see what people do with it. Then we can have a more general discussion of >how Struts in general, and the module concept in particular, can be expanded >to address peoples' needs. > Right. As I said, I was looking to get feedback. I really hoped there would be some meaningful discussion. It's now obvious to me though (blatantly) that such discussion is counter-productive to what our actual goal should be: getting 1.1 out the door. I do look forward to that event though :-) ... because then there will necessarily be speculation on how the next release should be dealt with - which features should (not) be included... and I look forward to being involved in those discussions ;-) >-- >Martin Cooper > -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
