struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ken McWilliams <ken.mcwilli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Struts 3 and namespaces
Date Tue, 09 Dec 2014 22:19:38 GMT
Interceptor stacks don't translate well with annotations (the struts2
package-name and action-name are required by the action-mapper to kick off
the processing, two keys are a pretty minimal requirement). It only makes
sense to use Struts2 package annotations as Java package-level annotations.
But then if the annotations were used that way (which as far as I know they
are not), you would get the worst of both worlds. You would have
annotations but they would not be on the action so you would need to look
elsewhere but unlike struts.xml it would be split-up into different files
(package-info.java) but where struts.xml will explicitly state what other
files are involved in the config you would have to hunt and peck for the
package meta-data.

At the end of the day, for interceptor definition struts.xml is the most
ideal. If annotations are being used conventions are probably at play, and
annotations should then be used for what they are intended for: overriding
the conventions, and in general shouldn't be something you do on every
action, otherwise the default conventions behaviour should be altered for
your case.

There of course is room for improvement, perhaps considering
interceptor-stacks something like templates? That is parts of templates can
be changed out, without needing a full redefinition.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> wrote:

> I hear your points.
>
> In addition, I noticed that namespaces don't translate well with
> annotations. It might just be more consistent to configure on a per action
> basis just by specifying the interceptor stack to use.
>
> Also, I find namespaces most frustrating when I rename URLs and have to
> move around the config to put the XML action configs in the right
> namespaces.
> On Dec 9, 2014 2:57 PM, "Dave Newton" <davelnewton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I used package-level interceptors from time to time, mostly for really
> easy
> > auth interceptors applied to chunks of pages. There was some other
> use-case
> > I had, but I can't recall what it was; it was related to some data
> > transformations.
> >
> > It also provides a mechanism for grouping actions together in a logical
> way
> > w/o having to rely on consistent URL naming convention that can be
> > fat-fingered pretty easily, but I'm not sure that counts as "really
> > valuable".
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > One concept I never really liked in S2 are namespaces. I never found a
> > good
> > > reason to logically group actions together with common interceptor
> setup.
> > > Rather I always find myself in the situation where the interceptor
> stack
> > is
> > > globally set and actions have one-off changes. And I also never liked
> how
> > > namespaces limit the scope of result types.
> > >
> > > Am I right or is this feature really valuable?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > e: davelnewton@gmail.com
> > m: 908-380-8699
> > s: davelnewton_skype
> > t: @dave_newton <https://twitter.com/dave_newton>
> > b: Bucky Bits <http://buckybits.blogspot.com/>
> > g: davelnewton <https://github.com/davelnewton>
> > so: Dave Newton <http://stackoverflow.com/users/438992/dave-newton>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message