You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tiles.apache.org by Timothy Astle <ti...@caris.com> on 2015/10/21 13:17:00 UTC
BasicTilesContainerFactory - Thoughts on allowing for more flexible
pathing to find the tiles.xml?
Hi all,
We're updating from Tiles 2 to Tiles 3 in our web applications. We only
need the minimal Tiles configuration, so the SimpleTilesListener is
almost ideal. However, I'm finding the "/WEB-INF/tiles.xml" pathing a
bit restrictive. The restrictive name is not causing an issue.
We historically left the tiles-def.xml in the classpath. Our
tiles-def.xml needs to have some preprocessing done (tweak some paths)
and it was really clean to just have the resources plugin do that as it
moves it from the Maven src/main/resources to the
target/<webapp>/WEB-INF/classes. We looked at a few other workarounds,
but some options were less than ideal, and involved tweaking the
Deployment Assembly in Eclipse (another thing we want to avoid).
So to recap, the reason I'm writing this email is to see if anyone would
be receptive to the idea of making that path more flexible? For now,
we'll just be extending the BasicTilesContainerFactory. But it wouldn't
take much effort to issue a pull request to pick up the improvement if
you are open to it.
Does anyone have any thoughts?
Tim
Re: BasicTilesContainerFactory - Thoughts on allowing for more
flexible pathing to find the tiles.xml?
Posted by Nicolas Le Bas <ma...@nlebas.net>.
I've been reviewing it a bit, and actually you just need
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TREQ-17.
I think tiles-request 1.2 is very close to being ready, from a code
perspective. Let me see if I can close it up this week-end and get the
review and approval process started.
Nick
On 10/23/2015 07:04 AM, Timothy Astle wrote:
> Yes, the plan is to keep it simple, just a little less restrictive.
>
> We've done the Tiles update already, and we're aiming to have a software
> release in a couple of months. So depending on what Tiles 3.1 offers,
> it could be possible for us to take time and update again but we'd have
> to do some evaluation of course.
>
> Tim
>
> On 22/10/2015 9:27 PM, Nicolas Le Bas wrote:
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> I don't see a problem with improving SimpleTilesListener /
>> DefaultTilesInitializer / BasicTilesContainer to provide better
>> default values, as long as it stays really simple.
>>
>> Concerning support for the classpath, it becomes easier with tiles
>> 3.1, but it is not ready, yet. What is your timeframe for this upgrade?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nick.
>>
>> On 10/21/2015 07:17 AM, Timothy Astle wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We're updating from Tiles 2 to Tiles 3 in our web applications. We only
>>> need the minimal Tiles configuration, so the SimpleTilesListener is
>>> almost ideal. However, I'm finding the "/WEB-INF/tiles.xml" pathing a
>>> bit restrictive. The restrictive name is not causing an issue.
>>>
>>> We historically left the tiles-def.xml in the classpath. Our
>>> tiles-def.xml needs to have some preprocessing done (tweak some paths)
>>> and it was really clean to just have the resources plugin do that as it
>>> moves it from the Maven src/main/resources to the
>>> target/<webapp>/WEB-INF/classes. We looked at a few other workarounds,
>>> but some options were less than ideal, and involved tweaking the
>>> Deployment Assembly in Eclipse (another thing we want to avoid).
>>>
>>> So to recap, the reason I'm writing this email is to see if anyone would
>>> be receptive to the idea of making that path more flexible? For now,
>>> we'll just be extending the BasicTilesContainerFactory. But it wouldn't
>>> take much effort to issue a pull request to pick up the improvement if
>>> you are open to it.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Tim
>>
>
Re: BasicTilesContainerFactory - Thoughts on allowing for more
flexible pathing to find the tiles.xml?
Posted by Timothy Astle <ti...@caris.com>.
Yes, the plan is to keep it simple, just a little less restrictive.
We've done the Tiles update already, and we're aiming to have a software
release in a couple of months. So depending on what Tiles 3.1 offers,
it could be possible for us to take time and update again but we'd have
to do some evaluation of course.
Tim
On 22/10/2015 9:27 PM, Nicolas Le Bas wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> I don't see a problem with improving SimpleTilesListener /
> DefaultTilesInitializer / BasicTilesContainer to provide better
> default values, as long as it stays really simple.
>
> Concerning support for the classpath, it becomes easier with tiles
> 3.1, but it is not ready, yet. What is your timeframe for this upgrade?
>
> Regards,
> Nick.
>
> On 10/21/2015 07:17 AM, Timothy Astle wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We're updating from Tiles 2 to Tiles 3 in our web applications. We only
>> need the minimal Tiles configuration, so the SimpleTilesListener is
>> almost ideal. However, I'm finding the "/WEB-INF/tiles.xml" pathing a
>> bit restrictive. The restrictive name is not causing an issue.
>>
>> We historically left the tiles-def.xml in the classpath. Our
>> tiles-def.xml needs to have some preprocessing done (tweak some paths)
>> and it was really clean to just have the resources plugin do that as it
>> moves it from the Maven src/main/resources to the
>> target/<webapp>/WEB-INF/classes. We looked at a few other workarounds,
>> but some options were less than ideal, and involved tweaking the
>> Deployment Assembly in Eclipse (another thing we want to avoid).
>>
>> So to recap, the reason I'm writing this email is to see if anyone would
>> be receptive to the idea of making that path more flexible? For now,
>> we'll just be extending the BasicTilesContainerFactory. But it wouldn't
>> take much effort to issue a pull request to pick up the improvement if
>> you are open to it.
>>
>> Does anyone have any thoughts?
>>
>> Tim
>
Re: BasicTilesContainerFactory - Thoughts on allowing for more
flexible pathing to find the tiles.xml?
Posted by Nicolas Le Bas <ma...@nlebas.net>.
Hi Tim,
I don't see a problem with improving SimpleTilesListener /
DefaultTilesInitializer / BasicTilesContainer to provide better default
values, as long as it stays really simple.
Concerning support for the classpath, it becomes easier with tiles 3.1,
but it is not ready, yet. What is your timeframe for this upgrade?
Regards,
Nick.
On 10/21/2015 07:17 AM, Timothy Astle wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We're updating from Tiles 2 to Tiles 3 in our web applications. We only
> need the minimal Tiles configuration, so the SimpleTilesListener is
> almost ideal. However, I'm finding the "/WEB-INF/tiles.xml" pathing a
> bit restrictive. The restrictive name is not causing an issue.
>
> We historically left the tiles-def.xml in the classpath. Our
> tiles-def.xml needs to have some preprocessing done (tweak some paths)
> and it was really clean to just have the resources plugin do that as it
> moves it from the Maven src/main/resources to the
> target/<webapp>/WEB-INF/classes. We looked at a few other workarounds,
> but some options were less than ideal, and involved tweaking the
> Deployment Assembly in Eclipse (another thing we want to avoid).
>
> So to recap, the reason I'm writing this email is to see if anyone would
> be receptive to the idea of making that path more flexible? For now,
> we'll just be extending the BasicTilesContainerFactory. But it wouldn't
> take much effort to issue a pull request to pick up the improvement if
> you are open to it.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts?
>
> Tim