click-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bob Schellink <>
Subject Re: FW: Convention over Configuration
Date Tue, 08 Jan 2013 06:23:12 GMT
Hi Dennis,

The only value really needed in click.xml is the "package" so that Click
knows how to map htm templates to Pages. All other configurations are

All applications needs some way to configure itself if the defaults aren't
sufficient ie. Wicket uses the WebApplication subclass etc.

There was JIRA to enhance ClickConfiguration so that click.xml could fall
away, however, one would still need to define a custom ClickConfiguration
to specify the value of "package".

I don't personally find click.xml a problem since it's basically a once off
configuration to specify the "package".

As a side note, the problem in the past with xml configuration was the
sheer amount of configuration needed. For example, with Struts one had to
edit the config xml files for every action added to the application.

Kind regards


On 06/01/2013 08:49 AM, Dennis M. J. Yerger wrote:

 Happy new year, everyone!

A popular principle guiding many frameworks today is convention over
configuration. This means using naming patterns instead of writing XML
files to automatically connect the pieces of your application. Some popular
frameworks follow this principle. Grails, Tapestry 5, Wicket, and Struts 2
(with the help of the Convention plugin) are just three examples. Even
Click supports this principle to a limited degree (page names are
automatically mapped to class names). However it still relies on the
click.xml file to make most other settings. I think Click can benefit from
using more conventions in its design so that the click.xml file becomes
optional or unnecessary altogether. Click is, in my opinion, an easy-to-use
framework. Convention over configuration would make it even easier. What do
you think?

View raw message