10/16/2002 5:01:55 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think it's reasonable we would fix things to be independent now, as >Martin and Craig have suggested, and then look at making modules >cooperate next.
I'm not talking about anyting to do with modules cooperating or not. I'm just saying that the supplemental Struts configuration files (for Validator and Tiles) can be specified as a list, but the main struts-config cannot be. In my experience, many teams just want multiple configuration files, period. This gives people what they want (multiple configs), without giving them something else they might not want (Chinese walls within the application). >Context-relative? Ok, but you have no sharing in that scenario. The >contextRelative approach just says "interpret this as relative to the >application root path" - I don't see how that makes sense here, but I'm >surely missing something. The purpose of a Tiles Definition is utilimately to include tiles, which means we need to specify a path to the tile. If we can mark some of the paths to be application-relative, then the modules can share tiles. >think) what is desirable (what I understood you were after) would be to >say "oh - this definition extends that one, but *that* one happens to be >in a different module". Am I on the wrong page here? I know this is my >goal - that's what I'm after. That would be cool, but it doesn't need to be in this release. Both the ActionMappings and the Definitions should support this type of extending in some future release (probably 1.2+). -Ted. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
