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 <te...@gmail.com> on 2006/04/30 15:28:49 UTC
[action2] /s /xwork.xml /action.xml
Heretofore, the WebWork product was being distributed by OpenSymphony
as WebWork 2. Now, the Action product is be distributed by Apache
Struts as Action 2.
In a prior discussion ("XWork and Struts Action 2.0 "), there was a
suggestion that we rename
* xwork.xml to struts-action.xml
which could lead to renaming
* webwork.xml to struts-action-default.xml
* webwork.vm to struts-action.vm
* webwork.properties to struts-action.properties
I would like to suggest that we use shorter names, and rename
* xwork.xml to action.xml
* webwork.xml to action-default.xml
* webwork.properties to action.properties
* default.properties to action-default.properties
* webwork.vm to action.vm
I'm not suggesting that we make additional source code changes until
after we bring the codebase in from the incubator, but I would like to
push forward on the documentation now.
Just as a test, I've updated a few of the documentation pages to
reflect the "webwork==action" scheme.
* http://confluence.twdata.org/display/WW/Configuration+Files
Of course, if we decide to go a different way, I'd update the pages
accordingly. I would also do the work of any additional renaming of
source code members and consequent changes.
Thoughts?
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [action2] /s /xwork.xml /action.xml
Posted by Jason Carreira <fo...@opensymphony.com>.
> I looked at how to make that change, but I think we
> still need to do some work
> with xwork's config. It makes heavy use of this
> XWorkStatic class with static
> retrieval methods. Worse, the static use creates a
> circular dependency between
> ConfigurationManager and DefaultConfiguration for the
> purposes of retrieving the
> list of ConfigurationProviders from
> ConfigurationManager. Furthermore, there
> doesn't seem to be a way to inject your own list of
> providers before the default
> list is created, since to do so, you have to get the
> ConfigurationManager
> instance from XWorkStatic and by doing so, you
> implicitly create one with a
> default list of providers.
>
> I want to wait to see Jason's thoughts before making
> this change.
Yeah, that stuff's crappy, all right. I just created the XWorkStatic class on the flight back from SF as a "ghetto" to put the statics in until we could get rid of them altogether. I wanted to get all of them into that one place so they'd be easier to identify and deal with. I only got around to moving the one, the Configuration, but there's more to be moved... dragged into the XWorkStatics and shot...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=28769&messageID=65844#65844
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [action2] /s /xwork.xml /action.xml
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Ok, I'm open to change xwork.xml to action.xml and even make that configurable
in struts.properties. Wasn't action.xml the name of the original Struts
configuration file? That has a nice symmetry to it.
I looked at how to make that change, but I think we still need to do some work
with xwork's config. It makes heavy use of this XWorkStatic class with static
retrieval methods. Worse, the static use creates a circular dependency between
ConfigurationManager and DefaultConfiguration for the purposes of retrieving the
list of ConfigurationProviders from ConfigurationManager. Furthermore, there
doesn't seem to be a way to inject your own list of providers before the default
list is created, since to do so, you have to get the ConfigurationManager
instance from XWorkStatic and by doing so, you implicitly create one with a
default list of providers.
I want to wait to see Jason's thoughts before making this change.
Don
Ted Husted wrote:
> A key problem is renaming the xwork.xml file. Last time I looked, the
> token "xwork.xml" is hardwired, so we'd have to change the way OS
> XWork is configured, or use a "Rube Goldberg" bootstap file.
>
> As to the rest of it, I'm ready to let it drop, as we have other "fish
> to fry".
>
> -Ted.
>
> On 6/9/06, Don Brown <do...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The webwork renaming issue goes deeper than just those 3 or so files
>> and affects things like template variables, the static resources
>> prefix, the dojo package, etc. Currently, they have all be renamed to
>> 'struts' consistently, however if we switched to 'struts-action' or
>> even 'action', I'm not sure it would be appropriate name for all those
>> areas.
>>
>> Ted, are you suggesting just renaming those configuration files or a
>> renaming exercise that goes deeper? If it is the former, I just don't
>> think 'action' is appropriate for things like template variable names
>> as they would be confused with the Action itself, and complex names
>> like 'struts-action' obviously wouldn't work for such variable names.
>> If it is the latter, let's put both options on the table and let the
>> community vote. If the community would rather use something
>> different, I agree that we need to do that now.
>>
>> Don
>>
>> On 5/1/06, Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> wrote:
>> > As much as I love shorter names, I still think "struts-action" is more
>> > user friendly. I see "struts" and immediately know what the file is. I
>> > can't say the same for "action"; it's missing an important namespace
>> > qualifier.
>> >
>> > If anything, I would shorten it to "struts.xml", but like we said
>> > before, we could run into a conflict if the user uses shale or
>> > something at the same time. Is this really worth worrying about, i.e.
>> > does Shale or some other Struts project already use or plan on using
>> > "struts.xml"?
>> >
>> > Actually, on my project, we used to name our files "foo-xwork.xml",
>> > but now we name them "foo.xwork". Maybe there's another option along
>> > those lines...
>> >
>> > Bob
>> >
>> > On 4/30/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Heretofore, the WebWork product was being distributed by OpenSymphony
>> > > as WebWork 2. Now, the Action product is be distributed by Apache
>> > > Struts as Action 2.
>> > >
>> > > In a prior discussion ("XWork and Struts Action 2.0 "), there was a
>> > > suggestion that we rename
>> > >
>> > > * xwork.xml to struts-action.xml
>> > >
>> > > which could lead to renaming
>> > >
>> > > * webwork.xml to struts-action-default.xml
>> > > * webwork.vm to struts-action.vm
>> > > * webwork.properties to struts-action.properties
>> > >
>> > > I would like to suggest that we use shorter names, and rename
>> > >
>> > > * xwork.xml to action.xml
>> > > * webwork.xml to action-default.xml
>> > > * webwork.properties to action.properties
>> > > * default.properties to action-default.properties
>> > > * webwork.vm to action.vm
>> > >
>> > > I'm not suggesting that we make additional source code changes until
>> > > after we bring the codebase in from the incubator, but I would
>> like to
>> > > push forward on the documentation now.
>> > >
>> > > Just as a test, I've updated a few of the documentation pages to
>> > > reflect the "webwork==action" scheme.
>> > >
>> > > * http://confluence.twdata.org/display/WW/Configuration+Files
>> > >
>> > > Of course, if we decide to go a different way, I'd update the pages
>> > > accordingly. I would also do the work of any additional renaming of
>> > > source code members and consequent changes.
>> > >
>> > > Thoughts?
>> > >
>> > > -Ted.
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [action2] /s /xwork.xml /action.xml
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
A key problem is renaming the xwork.xml file. Last time I looked, the
token "xwork.xml" is hardwired, so we'd have to change the way OS
XWork is configured, or use a "Rube Goldberg" bootstap file.
As to the rest of it, I'm ready to let it drop, as we have other "fish to fry".
-Ted.
On 6/9/06, Don Brown <do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The webwork renaming issue goes deeper than just those 3 or so files
> and affects things like template variables, the static resources
> prefix, the dojo package, etc. Currently, they have all be renamed to
> 'struts' consistently, however if we switched to 'struts-action' or
> even 'action', I'm not sure it would be appropriate name for all those
> areas.
>
> Ted, are you suggesting just renaming those configuration files or a
> renaming exercise that goes deeper? If it is the former, I just don't
> think 'action' is appropriate for things like template variable names
> as they would be confused with the Action itself, and complex names
> like 'struts-action' obviously wouldn't work for such variable names.
> If it is the latter, let's put both options on the table and let the
> community vote. If the community would rather use something
> different, I agree that we need to do that now.
>
> Don
>
> On 5/1/06, Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> wrote:
> > As much as I love shorter names, I still think "struts-action" is more
> > user friendly. I see "struts" and immediately know what the file is. I
> > can't say the same for "action"; it's missing an important namespace
> > qualifier.
> >
> > If anything, I would shorten it to "struts.xml", but like we said
> > before, we could run into a conflict if the user uses shale or
> > something at the same time. Is this really worth worrying about, i.e.
> > does Shale or some other Struts project already use or plan on using
> > "struts.xml"?
> >
> > Actually, on my project, we used to name our files "foo-xwork.xml",
> > but now we name them "foo.xwork". Maybe there's another option along
> > those lines...
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > On 4/30/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Heretofore, the WebWork product was being distributed by OpenSymphony
> > > as WebWork 2. Now, the Action product is be distributed by Apache
> > > Struts as Action 2.
> > >
> > > In a prior discussion ("XWork and Struts Action 2.0 "), there was a
> > > suggestion that we rename
> > >
> > > * xwork.xml to struts-action.xml
> > >
> > > which could lead to renaming
> > >
> > > * webwork.xml to struts-action-default.xml
> > > * webwork.vm to struts-action.vm
> > > * webwork.properties to struts-action.properties
> > >
> > > I would like to suggest that we use shorter names, and rename
> > >
> > > * xwork.xml to action.xml
> > > * webwork.xml to action-default.xml
> > > * webwork.properties to action.properties
> > > * default.properties to action-default.properties
> > > * webwork.vm to action.vm
> > >
> > > I'm not suggesting that we make additional source code changes until
> > > after we bring the codebase in from the incubator, but I would like to
> > > push forward on the documentation now.
> > >
> > > Just as a test, I've updated a few of the documentation pages to
> > > reflect the "webwork==action" scheme.
> > >
> > > * http://confluence.twdata.org/display/WW/Configuration+Files
> > >
> > > Of course, if we decide to go a different way, I'd update the pages
> > > accordingly. I would also do the work of any additional renaming of
> > > source code members and consequent changes.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > -Ted.
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
HTH, Ted.
* http://www.husted.com/struts/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [action2] /s /xwork.xml /action.xml
Posted by Don Brown <do...@gmail.com>.
The webwork renaming issue goes deeper than just those 3 or so files
and affects things like template variables, the static resources
prefix, the dojo package, etc. Currently, they have all be renamed to
'struts' consistently, however if we switched to 'struts-action' or
even 'action', I'm not sure it would be appropriate name for all those
areas.
Ted, are you suggesting just renaming those configuration files or a
renaming exercise that goes deeper? If it is the former, I just don't
think 'action' is appropriate for things like template variable names
as they would be confused with the Action itself, and complex names
like 'struts-action' obviously wouldn't work for such variable names.
If it is the latter, let's put both options on the table and let the
community vote. If the community would rather use something
different, I agree that we need to do that now.
Don
On 5/1/06, Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org> wrote:
> As much as I love shorter names, I still think "struts-action" is more
> user friendly. I see "struts" and immediately know what the file is. I
> can't say the same for "action"; it's missing an important namespace
> qualifier.
>
> If anything, I would shorten it to "struts.xml", but like we said
> before, we could run into a conflict if the user uses shale or
> something at the same time. Is this really worth worrying about, i.e.
> does Shale or some other Struts project already use or plan on using
> "struts.xml"?
>
> Actually, on my project, we used to name our files "foo-xwork.xml",
> but now we name them "foo.xwork". Maybe there's another option along
> those lines...
>
> Bob
>
> On 4/30/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Heretofore, the WebWork product was being distributed by OpenSymphony
> > as WebWork 2. Now, the Action product is be distributed by Apache
> > Struts as Action 2.
> >
> > In a prior discussion ("XWork and Struts Action 2.0 "), there was a
> > suggestion that we rename
> >
> > * xwork.xml to struts-action.xml
> >
> > which could lead to renaming
> >
> > * webwork.xml to struts-action-default.xml
> > * webwork.vm to struts-action.vm
> > * webwork.properties to struts-action.properties
> >
> > I would like to suggest that we use shorter names, and rename
> >
> > * xwork.xml to action.xml
> > * webwork.xml to action-default.xml
> > * webwork.properties to action.properties
> > * default.properties to action-default.properties
> > * webwork.vm to action.vm
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that we make additional source code changes until
> > after we bring the codebase in from the incubator, but I would like to
> > push forward on the documentation now.
> >
> > Just as a test, I've updated a few of the documentation pages to
> > reflect the "webwork==action" scheme.
> >
> > * http://confluence.twdata.org/display/WW/Configuration+Files
> >
> > Of course, if we decide to go a different way, I'd update the pages
> > accordingly. I would also do the work of any additional renaming of
> > source code members and consequent changes.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -Ted.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [action2] /s /xwork.xml /action.xml
Posted by Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org>.
As much as I love shorter names, I still think "struts-action" is more
user friendly. I see "struts" and immediately know what the file is. I
can't say the same for "action"; it's missing an important namespace
qualifier.
If anything, I would shorten it to "struts.xml", but like we said
before, we could run into a conflict if the user uses shale or
something at the same time. Is this really worth worrying about, i.e.
does Shale or some other Struts project already use or plan on using
"struts.xml"?
Actually, on my project, we used to name our files "foo-xwork.xml",
but now we name them "foo.xwork". Maybe there's another option along
those lines...
Bob
On 4/30/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heretofore, the WebWork product was being distributed by OpenSymphony
> as WebWork 2. Now, the Action product is be distributed by Apache
> Struts as Action 2.
>
> In a prior discussion ("XWork and Struts Action 2.0 "), there was a
> suggestion that we rename
>
> * xwork.xml to struts-action.xml
>
> which could lead to renaming
>
> * webwork.xml to struts-action-default.xml
> * webwork.vm to struts-action.vm
> * webwork.properties to struts-action.properties
>
> I would like to suggest that we use shorter names, and rename
>
> * xwork.xml to action.xml
> * webwork.xml to action-default.xml
> * webwork.properties to action.properties
> * default.properties to action-default.properties
> * webwork.vm to action.vm
>
> I'm not suggesting that we make additional source code changes until
> after we bring the codebase in from the incubator, but I would like to
> push forward on the documentation now.
>
> Just as a test, I've updated a few of the documentation pages to
> reflect the "webwork==action" scheme.
>
> * http://confluence.twdata.org/display/WW/Configuration+Files
>
> Of course, if we decide to go a different way, I'd update the pages
> accordingly. I would also do the work of any additional renaming of
> source code members and consequent changes.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [action2] /s /xwork.xml /action.xml
Posted by Eric Molitor <em...@molitor.org>.
Even prior to the SAF merger I've always thought it should be
action.xml. Only the action.vm feels a bit awkward to me. My
preference would be default.vm, base.vm, or something like that.
On 4/30/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heretofore, the WebWork product was being distributed by OpenSymphony
> as WebWork 2. Now, the Action product is be distributed by Apache
> Struts as Action 2.
>
> In a prior discussion ("XWork and Struts Action 2.0 "), there was a
> suggestion that we rename
>
> * xwork.xml to struts-action.xml
>
> which could lead to renaming
>
> * webwork.xml to struts-action-default.xml
> * webwork.vm to struts-action.vm
> * webwork.properties to struts-action.properties
>
> I would like to suggest that we use shorter names, and rename
>
> * xwork.xml to action.xml
> * webwork.xml to action-default.xml
> * webwork.properties to action.properties
> * default.properties to action-default.properties
> * webwork.vm to action.vm
>
> I'm not suggesting that we make additional source code changes until
> after we bring the codebase in from the incubator, but I would like to
> push forward on the documentation now.
>
> Just as a test, I've updated a few of the documentation pages to
> reflect the "webwork==action" scheme.
>
> * http://confluence.twdata.org/display/WW/Configuration+Files
>
> Of course, if we decide to go a different way, I'd update the pages
> accordingly. I would also do the work of any additional renaming of
> source code members and consequent changes.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org