Re: Advantages to Declaring Pages in .app file?

Actually, I have some misgivings about placing templates in the context 
root.  The key one is that it would mean that contexts using Tapestry would 
need to be Tapestry *only*.  Currently it is possible to use Tapestry, JSP, 
and other frameworks within the same context if they are mapped 
appropriately.  This could be important for integration with existing web 
apps and in places where Tapestry is only part of a larger site that needs 
to share session information.

My second concern is that if Tapestry is designed to control the entire 
context, people may ignore that fact and try to map files to the context 
root anyway.  In doing this, they could easily open up a (very minor) 
security hole where people might be able to access raw files from the 
context root that are intended to be templates or page files.

Thoughts?

Eric Everman



At 11/15/2002, [email protected] wrote:
>Nope, these ideas are where we are headed.
>
>My thinking is that the templates belong in the context root, so that 
>relative
>URLs to static assets work.
>
>I had been thinking that any page that required a page specification would
>require an entry into the application specification.
>
>This idea, that there could be a specific directory where page specifications
>are stored, is very worthwhile.
>
>Where we could end up is that the application specification exists to 
>identify
>libraries and components.
>
>
>--
>[email protected]



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing 
your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte 
Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html