To me, Joe's ExecuteForwardCommand, coupled with the catalog/command attributes for action mappings, already do what Frank's setupItem aims to do. Per-forward prep can be done with per-forward commands or chains, and there are per-action equivalents as well.
Hubert On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:07:42 -0000, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't looked at your actual implementation, but my gut feel is that we > need to be careful about adding new elements to the struts-config.xml - the > simpler the better IMO. Maybe there are alternative mechanisms that achieve > the same goal. Martin suggested ChainAction in that thread (for Struts > 1.3) - another, Struts 1.2, option would be to use a Tiles Controller. > > http://struts.apache.org/api/org/apache/struts/tiles/Controller.html > > At the end of the day its a bit chicken and egg as far as contributions and > committers go. If you post an idea, people say "code talks" - if you go to > the trouble of doing the code (as you did), its disheartening to get either > no reaction or a -ve one. Its a bit hit and miss whether you're going to > find anyone with either the desire or time to plug in what you produce (I've > had very little over the last few months). Back porting to 1.2 is more > effort so the same goes. Personally, once I switch over to 1.3 the > motivation for me to duplicate work on 1.2 will not be that high. By far the > largest part of the effort (IMO) is not sticking the code/patches in, its > testing and (probably, coz I haven't done it) actually going through the > release process. > > Niall > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:16 PM > > > That kind of begs the question... if I were to implement what I did in > > 1.3, would there then be interest from the committers? I think there was > > a reasonable amount of interest expressed by the user community for what I > > did, and if its just a matter of porting it to 1.3, then there is an > > opening here for me. And assuming that was the case, would there then > > still be a problem adding it to 1.2? If there was going to be no > > compatibility issue between 1.2 and 1.3, would there still be resistance > > to adding it to 1.2 as well as 1.3? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
