You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@struts.apache.org by "Don Brown (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2006/07/10 05:32:16 UTC
[jira] Created: (WW-1376) Struts configuration files should be
named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: WW-1376
URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376
Project: Struts 2
Type: Improvement
Components: Configuration
Reporter: Don Brown
Assigned to: Don Brown
Fix For: 2.0.0
As part of the renaming and WW cleanup process, I think Struts should have its own configuration DTD, so users would use it and not the XWork one.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] Commented: (WW-1376) Struts configuration files should be
named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
Posted by "Wendy Smoak (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376?page=comments#action_37704 ]
Wendy Smoak commented on WW-1376:
---------------------------------
See also: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40struts.apache.org/msg23446.html
Gabe:
Question on this and the overall philosophy that is the goal for Struts 2. Why is it necessary to have a struts dtd rather than simply use the xwork dtd and then simply add the feature that allows the name to be changed from xwork.xml to struts.xml?
Is the goal still to keep XWork functionality out of Struts 2 or has it been resolved to create an abstraction layer around XWork so Struts 2 users don't use XWork directly at all?
Don:
As I understand it, our goal is to shield our users from having to know
about XWork, and that would include its DTD. Allowing XWork details to
leak through makes it confusing to find documentation, know where to
submit tickets, and ask for help.
The downside is maintaining the DTD, which is essentially the XWork 1.1
DTD in Struts, however this file is small and shouldn't be a problem.
Also, it should be noted that we are still able to recognize and process
historical xwork.xml files.
> Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WW-1376
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376
> Project: Struts 2
> Type: Improvement
> Components: Configuration
> Reporter: Don Brown
> Assignee: Don Brown
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> As part of the renaming and WW cleanup process, I think Struts should have its own configuration DTD, so users would use it and not the XWork one.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] Commented: (WW-1376) Struts configuration files should be
named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
Posted by "Don Brown (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376?page=comments#action_37772 ]
Don Brown commented on WW-1376:
-------------------------------
This is technically a possiblity, due to how XWork processes XML files. XWork loads them into a DOM document, then pulls out what elements it needs. We could define one aggregated DTD, and still reuse most, if not all, of the XWork processing logic. Of course, if we did want to propose that, I think it should be its own ticket :)
> Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WW-1376
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376
> Project: Struts 2
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Configuration
> Reporter: Don Brown
> Assigned To: Don Brown
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>
> As part of the renaming and WW cleanup process, I think Struts should have its own configuration DTD, so users would use it and not the XWork one.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WW-1376) Struts configuration files should
be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
As I understand it, our goal is to shield our users from having to know
about XWork, and that would include its DTD. Allowing XWork details to
leak through makes it confusing to find documentation, know where to
submit tickets, and ask for help.
The downside is maintaining the DTD, which is essentially the XWork 1.1
DTD in Struts, however this file is small and shouldn't be a problem.
Also, it should be noted that we are still able to recognize and process
historical xwork.xml files.
Don
Gabe wrote:
> Question on this and the overall philosophy that is the goal for Struts 2. Why is it necessary to have a struts dtd rather than simply use the xwork dtd and then simply add the feature that allows the name to be changed from xwork.xml to struts.xml?
>
> Is the goal still to keep XWork functionality out of Struts 2 or has it been resolved to create an abstraction layer around XWork so Struts 2 users don't use XWork directly at all?
>
> Thanks,
> Gabe
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Don Brown (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org>
> To: issues@struts.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 1:21:16 AM
> Subject: [jira] Resolved: (WW-1376) Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
>
> [ http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376?page=all ]
>
> Don Brown resolved WW-1376:
> ---------------------------
>
> Resolution: Fixed
>
> Fixed, so now Struts has struts.xml with its own DTD
>
>> Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Key: WW-1376
>> URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376
>> Project: Struts 2
>> Type: Improvement
>
>> Components: Configuration
>> Reporter: Don Brown
>> Assignee: Don Brown
>> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>> As part of the renaming and WW cleanup process, I think Struts should have its own configuration DTD, so users would use it and not the XWork one.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [jira] Resolved: (WW-1376) Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
Posted by Gabe <gj...@yahoo.com>.
Question on this and the overall philosophy that is the goal for Struts 2. Why is it necessary to have a struts dtd rather than simply use the xwork dtd and then simply add the feature that allows the name to be changed from xwork.xml to struts.xml?
Is the goal still to keep XWork functionality out of Struts 2 or has it been resolved to create an abstraction layer around XWork so Struts 2 users don't use XWork directly at all?
Thanks,
Gabe
----- Original Message ----
From: Don Brown (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org>
To: issues@struts.apache.org
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 1:21:16 AM
Subject: [jira] Resolved: (WW-1376) Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
[ http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376?page=all ]
Don Brown resolved WW-1376:
---------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed, so now Struts has struts.xml with its own DTD
> Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WW-1376
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376
> Project: Struts 2
> Type: Improvement
> Components: Configuration
> Reporter: Don Brown
> Assignee: Don Brown
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> As part of the renaming and WW cleanup process, I think Struts should have its own configuration DTD, so users would use it and not the XWork one.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
[jira] Resolved: (WW-1376) Struts configuration files should be
named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
Posted by "Don Brown (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376?page=all ]
Don Brown resolved WW-1376:
---------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed, so now Struts has struts.xml with its own DTD
> Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WW-1376
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376
> Project: Struts 2
> Type: Improvement
> Components: Configuration
> Reporter: Don Brown
> Assignee: Don Brown
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> As part of the renaming and WW cleanup process, I think Struts should have its own configuration DTD, so users would use it and not the XWork one.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] Commented: (WW-1376) Struts configuration files should be
named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
Posted by "Ted Husted (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376?page=comments#action_37710 ]
Ted Husted commented on WW-1376:
--------------------------------
Ultimately, I think the goal should be to do with XWork what we do with Spring. I don't envision needing or wanting to plug another "action engine" into the framework the way we might want to plug in another "object factory", but the goal should be the same: Put the dependency behind a facade so that we can make it easier to use and (technically) pluggable. Since we don't use the Spring DTD directly, it would follow that we shouldn't use the XWork DTD directly too.
People who know they are using Spring, can choose to use Spring directly in an application too. Likewise, people who want to use XWork directly can do that too. I'm still looking forward to trying to use XWork as a business facade, outside of Struts 2. Who knows, maybe one day we will offer an empty ready-to-use xwork.xml again, the way we offer an ready-to-use Spring configuration now. :)
> Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WW-1376
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376
> Project: Struts 2
> Type: Improvement
> Components: Configuration
> Reporter: Don Brown
> Assignee: Don Brown
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> As part of the renaming and WW cleanup process, I think Struts should have its own configuration DTD, so users would use it and not the XWork one.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[jira] Commented: (WW-1376) Struts configuration files should be
named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
Posted by "Ted Husted (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376?page=comments#action_37768 ]
Ted Husted commented on WW-1376:
--------------------------------
OK, next question, what about
<!DOCTYPE validators PUBLIC
"-//OpenSymphony Group//XWork Validator 1.0//EN"
"http://www.opensymphony.com/xwork/xwork-validator-1.0.2.dtd">
My own preference would be to create "one DTD to rule them all".
I'd like to work toward being able to define an entire workflow in a single configuration file, actions, validations, as well as localized text -- but still be able to have separate files with different kinds of elements, as we do today. One strategy doesn't obviate the other.
-Ted.
> Struts configuration files should be named struts.xml, not xwork.xml
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WW-1376
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1376
> Project: Struts 2
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Configuration
> Reporter: Don Brown
> Assigned To: Don Brown
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>
> As part of the renaming and WW cleanup process, I think Struts should have its own configuration DTD, so users would use it and not the XWork one.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira