From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > My feeling is that POJO Actions might encourage people to couch their > business logic as POJO actions :) > > It's unlikely that such a class could be a true POJO. It would have to > be bound to Struts in some way. Otherwise, the Action would not > produce a result that we could use in Struts.
OK, "POJO Actions" is a bad example. IMO minimizing direct reference to Action and ActionForm in the Commands and Context provided with ComposableRequestProcessor would mean that, for example, replacing the current concrete Action with an equivalent interface (say Actionable) would be simpler. The only thing that would need doing is replacing the part of the Command that actually executes the Actionable's method, rather than having to create new Commands & Context that duplicate the "default" flavours. > 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. Having a concrete Action (or ActionForm) doesn't prevent people from using Struts badly and I don't buy the argument that we shouldn't make the famework flexible in case people burn themselves. Having flexibilty would allow people to inovate and push the boundaries of Struts. Most people won't, they'll use the standard "flavour", but if people do start re-wiring the framework and end up with a badly implemented app, then they do so at their own risk - were all adults :-) Niall --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
