It's not that it's difficult to keep it "Swing compatible" and it's not a choice of loosing features. The new features, the biggest one being Interceptors, IMHO, are in no way involved in this. This is really a question of cleaning up some (IMO) ugliness in the original code that was put in to keep backward compatibility.
Actions were originally spec'd to have a method, execute(), with no parameters. That was back when we had ServletAware, etc., and the context information would be made available to the Action before it was executed. When it was decided to get rid of these interfaces, to decouple Webwork from Servlets, it was decided to move to ActionContext, which uses a ThreadLocal to save the execution context for the Action in a way that is easily available, local to the current execution, and doesn't have to be passed as a parameter. Unfortunately, if you want Action preparation, execution, etc, to be able to be run from multiple threads, ThreadLocals are, at the very least, very difficult to use, and, at the worst, unworkable. Is this a huge deal? No, not really. Would it be nice to be able to do this the right way? Yes. But, if it is a requirement that old Actions not have to change their method signature and be able to get the params from the ActionContext ThreadLocal, then this is a limitation that can be documented and worked around. Just my $0.02 Jason > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Carlens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 1:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Reflection > > > I have been following this list for quite some time with > great interest. I really like all the new ideas for XWork. I > think it would be sad not to see those ideas become > implemented only because it would be difficult to keep it > "Swing compatible". If an alternative is to break Webwork and > XWork into two different projects I think it would be > unfortunate, however, considering the alternative (miss out > on all the great new functionality) I still think it would be > worth it, but that's just my thinking for all it's worth. > > /Robert > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rickard Öberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:24:26 +0100 > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Reflection > > Erik Beeson wrote: > > Rickard, as I understood, XWork was to break away from J2EE, hence > > removing "web" from the name. If new versions with strong > web ties are > > going to remain, shouldn't they remain under the original WebWork > > name? > > That is something I wanted to gauge by my last couple of emails. I > personally do not believe (at this point) that making the web part > "optional" is going to work very well. I certainly don't > believe that it > is going to be feasible, or even a good idea, to make a > framework that > allows code to be written for both Swing and the web. They're > different > beasts with different requirements, with completely different > thinking > behind how code gets written. We have a lot of Swing code in our > project, and when I look at it I simply don't see how something like > XWork would fit in, or why it would be useful. > > What *is* useful is to allow actions to be called without a servlet > environment, but more or less *only* for testing/debugging purposes. > Executing actions as a response to asynchronous messages > could work too. > But that's about it. I do not believe that actions (except > for maybe 1% > of special cases) can be reused in so different spaces. I > remain open to > the *possibility* of it, but so far I just haven't seen it. > > So, given all of this, my resignation from XWork still holds. The > requirements that have been voiced the last few days are not > mine, and I > don't think they're compatible with my goals, at least not without > serious compromises that will only hurt the end result. The question > then becomes: would it be useful to do *both* XWork and > WebWork, but as > separate projects with these different goals? > > /Rickard > > -- > Rickard Öberg > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Senselogic > > Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld omething 2 > See! http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld =omething 2 > See! http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
