Haha! This must be from that new mail client - BileMail! :) On 3/7/03 4:39 AM, "Hani Suleiman" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
> This cannot be the Pat I've grown to distrust and have no faith in, but > I must say I really really like this new guy who has hijacked his email > account and is posting about why getting rid of Action is Not a Good > Thing > > On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 02:32 PM, Pat Lightbody wrote: > >> I don't agree, and I haven't looked at CVS lately, but if the Action >> interface is gone I'd like for it to be put back so that we can >> discuss this >> more. >> >> I think the mistake in your logic is that an action is a "just" a >> POJO. It's >> NOT though, it's a POJO with a method called execute() that contains a >> "stuff". That stuff is specifically put in the execute() method >> because that >> object needs to be recognized as something more than "just" an object: >> it >> HAS an execute() method, and therefore it IS an Action. This "is a" >> identity >> has been used by OO for decades and there is no reason we should get >> rid of >> it now. >> >> The argument that making your object implement Action ties it to XWork >> is >> dumb. So what if it is... even without it, having a method called >> execute() >> ties it to XWork anyway. Even having support for any method (a la >> command >> pattern), it is still tied to XWork because the action was written to >> operate in certain ways (IoC pattern support, getters and setters, and >> possible callouts to ActionContext). >> >> Please don't underestimate the importance of compile-time checking. >> For some >> things (validation, type coercion, web layers, etc) using runtime >> features >> of the language is very nice. But I don't want everything to be >> runtime -- >> that's why I choose WebWork: it provides a nice balance between >> compile time >> and runtime typing. >> >> I vote a BIG -1 to removing the Action interface, I have yet to see a >> real >> use case that would demonstrate the importance of doing this. >> >> -Pat >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jason Carreira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:16 AM >> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come! >> >> >>> This is a concern that Mike expressed as well, but I challenged him to >>> look at the code and see if it really makes sense. He looked, and >>> grudgingly agreed that it made sense to get rid of it, especially >>> since >>> it took like 10 minutes and Gavin from Hibernate was there, talking >>> about how he'd removed the Peristable interface from Hibernate because >>> it was just useless. >>> >>> Giving people a warm fuzzy feeling is not enough justification, IMO, >>> to >>> needlessly tie Actions to Xwork, when they can really just be POJO's >>> with no-arg methods returning a String. >>> >>> Jason >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:01 PM >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come! >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree completely. All this 'just define it/figure it out at >>>> runtime' >>>> stuff really bothers me. Interfaces might be very 'old >>>> school' now, but >>>> they are useful, just so you know at compile time what >>>> contracts your >>>> components/classes/whatever are adhering to. I still have yet >>>> to look >>>> at xwork (waiting for migration guides+tools and performance >>>> reports), >>>> but the concept of having all information in an xml file and >>>> an active >>>> effort to remove type safety/contracts from code feels very wrong. I >>>> understand the allure of 'but you can use ANYTHING as an >>>> action!', but >>>> I do feel that those things that are used as an action should >>>> anticipate somewhat that they are one and will be treated as one, in >>>> most cases. >>>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including >>> Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. >>> Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. >>> http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/ >>> direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Opensymphony-webwork mailing list >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including >> Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. >> Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. >> http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/ >> 01 >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensymphony-webwork mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
