I'm not aware of the motivations behind the newer config objects. The closest I have to a clue is someone mentioning in a previous email that the config objects were supposed to just hold data from the struts-config.xml file. If that's still the case, then (1) we should reduce the logic placed there (2) stop adding more methods with more logic. What that means is more util-type classes to hold the logic and pass config classes to them. For (1), an obvious target would be the config inheritance. They can be moved to a separate class which will contain all inheritance logic. The findForward(String) type methods would move to a separate class also. Of course, all this hangs on the reason we have the newer "config" API in the first place. Can anyone point me to a thread or provide some clarification?
Hubert On 5/31/05, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've generally been attempting to code to the newer "config" APIs > instead of the older not-quite-deprecated forms, and I just hit > something I didn't expect; I don't know whether it qualifies as a bug > or just my own misunderstanding. > > When one has an object of type "ActionConfig", there is a method, > "findForwardConfig". This method looks in the actionConfig's map of > ForwardConfig objects and returns a match or null. > > However, there is no method which captures the behavior of > ActionMapping.findForward(String), which searches not only the local > collection of ForwardConfig objects but also the global scope. > > Should ActionConfig have a method which does something like this? I > would propose altering the behavior of findForwardConfig to also go a > "global" search as a fallback, because I believe the name "find*" > implies more behavior. If there is need for a method which only > searches the local scope, I would propose that method be named > "getForwardConfig(String)" > > Is this too incompatible to introduce directly as described? Does > there need to be a new method which behaves as > "ActionMapping.findForward" but which presumably returns ActionConfig > instead of ActionMapping? My assumption is that vanishingly few > people write to the newer APIs; maybe I'm wasting my time doing it > myself. > > Joe > > -- > Joe Germuska > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blog.germuska.com > "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
