For what it is worth: -1 To follow Martin Fowler's reasoning (http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html), a MovieLister wants to use a MovieFinder interface but needs to create a MovieFinderImpl implementation of the MovieFinder interface to do so. We want the MovieLister to be coupled only to the interface and not to the implementation for all the reasons that decoupling is supported in OOP patterns. Most importantly, we want to be able to exchange implementations or to improve the implemenation without changing the MovieLister class. IoC does this. This seems to me to be very different than CoR and not incompatible with CoR. I would like to see Action be IoC and for RequestProcessor to be IoC and to have a default implemenation of RequestProcessor that is CoR. This would be close to the ideal in my mind. There are two types of plugins that are both very useful and they do not seem to be in competition but consistent to me. Does this make sense to anyone?
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:12:40 -0600, Vic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > > >the more the idea of making an Action > >a Command appeals to me. > > > > > +1. > > In essence ... less Struts and more Chain. > 2 chains, a user chain, and a request processing chain. > > (even one day go as far that the user-chain.xml replaces > struts-config.xml. The chain xml can have infinite nubmer of elements now. > And 10 years from now... have a declerative langage... where all you do > is write in xml what you want to happen.) > > > .V > > -- > Forums, Boards, Blogs and News in RiA <http://www.boardVU.com> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- No one ever went blind looking at the bright side of life. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
