Why don't you guys just look at the code? It is fairly simple and straightforward.
On 2/19/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/19/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyone can quote chapter and verse from the GoF book. Can you instead > > explain *why* what's in Struts isn't CoR? And, perhaps more > > importantly, explain why, even if it isn't an exact match for the > > pattern, it matters one bit? > > By the way, is Struts CoR actually a CoR? This is not a trick > question, I am just asking. > > If I understand correctly, in CoR pattern a client calls the chain > head and "the request propagates along the chain until a > ConcreteHandler object takes responsibility for handling it." (GoF) > > In Struts Classic prior to 1.3 a client calls a concrete action (which > is why I consider Struts Classic to *not* be an implementation of > Front Controller pattern). It is possible to stick additional > processing before the action class is called. Though it is not as easy > as in WebWork, it is possible. So, Struts Classic implements > Interceptor pattern, not Chain of Responsibility. > > So, how the whole thing works in 1.3? A client still calls a > particular mapping like in older Struts versions, right? Does this > mapping define a head of chain (CoR) or an end of chain > (interceptors)? If it defines the head of chain, is it still possible > to sneak interceptors into an arbitrary chain? > > Michael. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
