Okay, I'm moving this to the dev list. :)
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 22:35:13 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, then, now you've gone and done it, Hubert... I've just
> committed the basic support for per-forward commands.
>
Yeah, I saw that! I was checking my mail right when the commit
message came. It fits in *very* nicely, too.
> I think the next step would be to write a simple command which looks
> something like this:
>
> public class FormPrepCommand implements Command {
<snip/>
>
> Then one could use one or more of these in a per-forward chain of
> renders. Of course other commands could do non-form oriented setup.
>
+1
> Related to what I just checked in, I still like a model where rather
> than configuring command and catalog on each ForwardConfig, a lookup
> is done based on the "path" value of the ForwardConfig. No reason
> not to have both, of course, but I just think my style would be to
> have a catalog named "page-prep" and a different command in
> process-view which worked this way.
>
I think what you just checked in should still be the default, though,
since it'll make it easier to see whether something's executing on a
forward or not just by looking at one config file. It also feels more
struts-like, mapping a chain to a forward as opposed to mapping a
chain to a path. I get the idea, though, that for the same path, we'd
likely want to execute the same chain.
Wow. 1.3 is beginning to feel more like an x. change than a .x
change, yet it's all still fully backward compatible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
