Sure, a custom ActionInvocation instance could even invoke a Struts Action as is. The question is how you handle
ActionForms. Do you implement the Struts request processing chain as Interceptors? Add an Interceptor that calls a
chain? Action 2 already has the DefaultWorkflowInterceptor which defines the basic validation workflow, so it would be
easy to create one that implemented a Struts 1.x workflow.
Again, we've kinda started down this path in the sandbox. Take a look at that code and see if you can find anything
that might be helpful. This is exactly the type of migration library we had in mind for our first release, so your help
will be big.
Don
Eric Molitor wrote:
Well what I've been toying with is two things the first isn't directly
related but might be of interest.
At the SpringExperience there were some discussions about integrating
SpringWebflow into webwork and I started playing with some code. What I
ended up with was a weird WebFlowAction that could (semi) invoke a webflow.
It was far form perfect and I eventually lost interest. A week or so ago I
took the same idea and started writing a StrutsAction Action. Basically the
action just invokes the execute method of the struts action using
ServletActionContext.getResponse() and ServletActionContext.getRequest() to
supply the necessary parameters. There is a getActionForward() method for
getting the Struts Action result and the return is hardcoded to "SUCCESS".
I don't know how valid this is but I've been able to execute some synthetic
tests with positive results. The next bit I was planning on trying was using
reflection to invoke all the getter methods on the Struts Action and then
manually pushing them onto the stack. My reasoning for doing all of this was
to provide a way to invoke StrutsActions within an unmodified WebWork 2.2.
Now back to what you really asked for, any pojo is an action, why not just
write a custom dispatcher for invoking legacy Struts Actions and maybe
create a new execute method such as...
Public String execute(ActionMapping mapping, ActionForm form)
I probably should just start coding some of this up for people to look at as
I communicate much better that way. After rereading the email I don't think
I've clarified anything. But hey I'll send it anyway and try to get on the
WebWork chat server later to try to explain it a bit more logically.
- Eric
On 3/30/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On what framework would this solution you are describing run? Are you
talking about running Struts 1.x actions inside
Action 2? If so, that is something that has been started in the sandbox,
but not fully developed. I'd like to hear more.
Don
Eric Molitor wrote:
This may be a dumb suggestion but why not implement a lightweight action
class that's in StrutsAction and then if a user chooses they can use the
full support of XWork. I'm not sure where you draw the line (you'd
probably
want validation) but I cant see why you couldn't implement a few of the
interfaces. This kind of goes along with the POJO support for actions in
WW
2.2
- Eric
On 3/29/06, Don Brown < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To add to that, Patrick and I were collaborating on "phase 2" type
features before we even thought of merging projects. After that
brainstorming session, I started talking to Patrick about one of the
ideas that came out of the conversion, like devMode, and Patrick
implemented it in WebWork. He also went on to create QuickStart, which
allows you to quickly prototype applications without a complication
step. These were the types of ideas we were wanting to explore in Ti -
ways to make the job easier for the developer.
Don
Ted Husted wrote:
I think we're all still working off the original proposal.
* http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsTi
Don is simply referring to "phase 2", while most of us are still
focused on "phase 1".
-Ted.
On 3/30/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don, I think this is totally at odds with a lot of the things I've
been
reading lately. Granted its been hard to separate the facts from the
noise lately (through no fault of anyone involved with the merger),
but
even still...
Can I make a suggestion? Certainly for the sake of the users in both
communities, but also to be sure those doing the work are all on the
same page, I think it would be a good idea for someone to write up
what
the plan actually is, and make sure everyone is on board with
it. Maybe
I'm speaking out of turn and such a thing already exists, but I
really
believe a lot of people are thinking this is just a Webwork
rebranding,
with some additions taken from Struts, and if that isn't the case I
think it would be prudent to have a document than anyone can point to
and say "that's what we're doing, that's the plan!".
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
