<SNIP> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:33:12 -0800 (PST), Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > IMHO, Actions are fine the way they are. The one and > > only problem is > > that people keep trying to use Actions (and Struts) > > as a component of > > a business logic framework, rather than as an > > *adjunct* to a business > > logic framework. > > I'd like to disagree on this matter. Worst problem > with struts actions is that they need to be derived > from basic actions. This makes them pretty > unflexible. </SNIP>
I basically agree with Ted that the purpose and scope of Actions SHOULD BE INFLEXIBLE to the degree that they should do only what the present signature suggests, i.e. process a request and return an ActionForward. <SNIP> > > Implementing interface would be better option > ( well, you could always say that thise who "like to > implement interface" may go straight to webwork ) </SNIP> The interfaces, I think, should have the same signature. Maybe something different with ActionForm and maybe not. <SNIP> > The same problem with form beans.... </SNIP> ActionForms and Actions are just in a different category altogether, thank god. <SNIP> > > My concern would be that POJO Actions sound like a > > slippery slope that > > will encourage more people to write applications > > with Struts, rather > > than *into* Struts. > > What's wrong with it? I need from web framework: > - handling request parameters in sane way. > - dispatching to whatever action is necessary > - providing support for template rendering. > > I definitely do not like to know anything about struts > in my business logic. </SNIP> What you say you "need" is in total agreement with Ted so far as I can tell. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Is there a language problem here? <SNIP> > > Actions should be a thin adaptor between Struts and > > the business-end > > of an application. The business-end can be written > > as Commands or with > > POJOs. But, we are not do anyone any favors if we > > encourage people to > > write Actions with "POJO" Actions. > ... then struts will become webwork 1.4 > > > As Manfred mention, a good compromise might be make > > Action an > > interface sometime. People would then at least have > > to import the > > interface to mark what classes they are using as > > their Struts adapter. > > ... and trash form beans for good. </SNIP> Interfaces versus Actions are not alternatives to Actions versus POJOs. Interfaces provide an opportunity to make the framework extensible without muddying the relationship between Actions and business logic. Form beans allow a connection between the framework and the data on the pages. I think of them as essentially related to <html:form> taglibs. I think this is good. If you don't like FormBeans, then you don't have to use them. You can build your own data handling layer. Indeed, if you have any kind of sophistication in your application, you already have. God knows they are really used badly in most of the conversations on the user list. Thank god you don't have to use ActionForms. Keeping ActionForms from coming more a part of the framework is a GREAT idea. Once that happens, which it probably won't, Struts is dead. As a note of caution, the present is a real turning point for Struts. I would ask the committers to remember how successful the basic idea is before getting any ideas about changing that. Struts should succeed or fail as Struts, not as some other creature like Shale or some of the present ideas being bandied about. Shalom! Jack -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
