You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@deltaspike.apache.org by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> on 2013/06/19 21:19:01 UTC
package in core: view.config
Hi!
All the ViewConfig stuff has not much to do with 'Configuration', right? It's more related to 'View'.
Kind of the configuration for the View, but still only related to the View stuff.
As I've understood we only need it in core at all because some Security stuff references it as well, right?
But it's actually more view.config but config.view, isn't?
Fear people who look at our 'config' API/SPI will get confused by all those unrelated classes.
Should we move it? Or does it fit well enough and I just don't get it?
LieGrue,
strub
Re: package in core: view.config
Posted by Jason Porter <li...@gmail.com>.
I think moving it out would be a better idea. That said, could we not make
the security module an optional runtime dependency?
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:46 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Maybe it could be a separate module, and both security and ?? compile
> against that.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > All the ViewConfig stuff has not much to do with 'Configuration', right?
> > It's more related to 'View'.
> >
> > Kind of the configuration for the View, but still only related to the
> View
> > stuff.
> > As I've understood we only need it in core at all because some Security
> > stuff references it as well, right?
> >
> >
> > But it's actually more view.config but config.view, isn't?
> >
> > Fear people who look at our 'config' API/SPI will get confused by all
> > those unrelated classes.
> >
> > Should we move it? Or does it fit well enough and I just don't get it?
> >
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
>
--
Jason Porter
http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
Re: package in core: view.config
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
Maybe it could be a separate module, and both security and ?? compile
against that.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> All the ViewConfig stuff has not much to do with 'Configuration', right?
> It's more related to 'View'.
>
> Kind of the configuration for the View, but still only related to the View
> stuff.
> As I've understood we only need it in core at all because some Security
> stuff references it as well, right?
>
>
> But it's actually more view.config but config.view, isn't?
>
> Fear people who look at our 'config' API/SPI will get confused by all
> those unrelated classes.
>
> Should we move it? Or does it fit well enough and I just don't get it?
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>