You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> on 2004/01/20 05:37:48 UTC
[18111] et al
In reference to
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18111>
which I also gathered under
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25855>.
The suggestion is to add "contextRelative" to rewrite, as we just did for img. The usecase being the sharing of common resources between modules.
Since rewrite extends link, I'm tempted to put the contextRelative code into link. This change would seem to allow direct links between modules.
I don't remember if we discussed that before or not, so wanted to send up a flare before proceeding.
The one other remaining task is a fixing the pagePattern for img <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23127>.
If we decide to allow contextRelative links, as a refactoring, I may try a base "PathTag" to encapsulate the contextRelative and pagePattern code. Link, Rewrite, Img and so forth, can then extend "PathTag".
These two tasks (#18111 and #23127) could conceivably be wrapped up tomorrow, meaning we could roll 1.2.0 this weekend, if that sounds all right. :)
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Compartmentalization of Modules (was Re: [18111] et al)
Posted by Joe Germuska <Jo...@Germuska.com>.
> > I can't think of any reason to block direct links between modules; I
>> can't speak for others, but our use cases for modules turn out to be
>> much less strictly segregated than was apparently the intent of the
>> original design, given how complicated certain things turn out to be.
>
>The original intent of the current module design was to provide an
>alternative way of handling multiple independent Struts apps in the same web
>app. No more, no less. It was intentionally limited, so that we could gain
>some experience with how people would want to use it, with the understanding
>that we could build on that in later releases.
>
>There are certainly many, many things that people might want to do with
>their apps that might be usefully handled by extensions to our current
>module concept. However, there are also many, many ways in which we could
>extend the module concept. Jumping around between modules arbitrarily
>*might* be useful to some people in extending what they can do with modules
>today, but at the same time, it might also allow ways of circumventing
>structure that other people want to impose on modules.
>
>In other words, I *can* think of reasons to block direct links between
>modules, and I wouldn't want to see that enabled as a standard feature.
>Making it optional / configurable might be a viable alternative, at least
>for now, if other people really feel a need for this feature in 1.2.0.
I certainly didn't mean to insult the original design of modules --
hope that's not how I came off.
If you had the time, it might help me if you could elaborate on the
reasons one might want to block direct links between modules.
Ultimately, I think we need to understand the use cases for modules.
So far in our usage, it has been predominantly a way of segmenting a
large app into manageably sized struts-config files. I could be
wrong, but I suspect that there are many other Struts users who use
it this way, regardless of the original design intention.
Who are you blocking when you're trying to block direct links? Page
authors who might inadvertently violate a segmentation that you want
preserved? If that's the case, having a "contextRelative" boolean on
links is probably too risky, and you'd want the configuration in the
struts-config file where those users might be less likely to make a
change.
Thanks
Joe
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com
http://blog.germuska.com
"Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them
the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and
nobody thinks of complaining."
-- Jef Raskin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [18111] et al
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
"Joe Germuska" <Jo...@Germuska.com> wrote in message
news:a06020430bc32e7ee18e9@[192.168.2.81]...
> At 11:37 PM -0500 1/19/04, Ted Husted wrote:
> >In reference to
> >
> ><http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18111>
> >
> >which I also gathered under
> >
> ><http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25855>.
> >
> >The suggestion is to add "contextRelative" to rewrite, as we just
> >did for img. The usecase being the sharing of common resources
> >between modules.
> >
> >Since rewrite extends link, I'm tempted to put the contextRelative
> >code into link. This change would seem to allow direct links between
> >modules.
> >
> >I don't remember if we discussed that before or not, so wanted to
> >send up a flare before proceeding.
> >
> >The one other remaining task is a fixing the pagePattern for img
> ><http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23127>.
> >
> >If we decide to allow contextRelative links, as a refactoring, I may
> >try a base "PathTag" to encapsulate the contextRelative and
> >pagePattern code. Link, Rewrite, Img and so forth, can then extend
> >"PathTag".
> >
> >These two tasks (#18111 and #23127) could conceivably be wrapped up
> >tomorrow, meaning we could roll 1.2.0 this weekend, if that sounds
> >all right. :)
>
> I can't think of any reason to block direct links between modules; I
> can't speak for others, but our use cases for modules turn out to be
> much less strictly segregated than was apparently the intent of the
> original design, given how complicated certain things turn out to be.
The original intent of the current module design was to provide an
alternative way of handling multiple independent Struts apps in the same web
app. No more, no less. It was intentionally limited, so that we could gain
some experience with how people would want to use it, with the understanding
that we could build on that in later releases.
There are certainly many, many things that people might want to do with
their apps that might be usefully handled by extensions to our current
module concept. However, there are also many, many ways in which we could
extend the module concept. Jumping around between modules arbitrarily
*might* be useful to some people in extending what they can do with modules
today, but at the same time, it might also allow ways of circumventing
structure that other people want to impose on modules.
In other words, I *can* think of reasons to block direct links between
modules, and I wouldn't want to see that enabled as a standard feature.
Making it optional / configurable might be a viable alternative, at least
for now, if other people really feel a need for this feature in 1.2.0.
--
Martin Cooper
>
> I can use context-relative html:rewrite as soon as you check it in --
> I was just wrestling with its absence last night. Also, I would
> argue that the "switch action" is too much overhead for its own good
> -- and your proposed change would allow us to skip it also.
>
> Joe
>
> --
> Joe Germuska
> Joe@Germuska.com
> http://blog.germuska.com
> "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them
> the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and
> nobody thinks of complaining."
> -- Jef Raskin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [18111] et al
Posted by Joe Germuska <Jo...@Germuska.com>.
At 11:37 PM -0500 1/19/04, Ted Husted wrote:
>In reference to
>
><http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18111>
>
>which I also gathered under
>
><http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25855>.
>
>The suggestion is to add "contextRelative" to rewrite, as we just
>did for img. The usecase being the sharing of common resources
>between modules.
>
>Since rewrite extends link, I'm tempted to put the contextRelative
>code into link. This change would seem to allow direct links between
>modules.
>
>I don't remember if we discussed that before or not, so wanted to
>send up a flare before proceeding.
>
>The one other remaining task is a fixing the pagePattern for img
><http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23127>.
>
>If we decide to allow contextRelative links, as a refactoring, I may
>try a base "PathTag" to encapsulate the contextRelative and
>pagePattern code. Link, Rewrite, Img and so forth, can then extend
>"PathTag".
>
>These two tasks (#18111 and #23127) could conceivably be wrapped up
>tomorrow, meaning we could roll 1.2.0 this weekend, if that sounds
>all right. :)
I can't think of any reason to block direct links between modules; I
can't speak for others, but our use cases for modules turn out to be
much less strictly segregated than was apparently the intent of the
original design, given how complicated certain things turn out to be.
I can use context-relative html:rewrite as soon as you check it in --
I was just wrestling with its absence last night. Also, I would
argue that the "switch action" is too much overhead for its own good
-- and your proposed change would allow us to skip it also.
Joe
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com
http://blog.germuska.com
"Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them
the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and
nobody thinks of complaining."
-- Jef Raskin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org