Because, in my opinion, we shouldn't let implementation details leak
through the framework. Users and applications expect urls to be a
certain way, and if we change that just to get rid of a few lines of
framework code, I don't think that is an acceptable tradeoff. On the
other side, going outside a company's coding standards just to conform
the application to standard url conventions is equally unacceptable.
The over-arching principle is to make the most common things the easiest
and sacrificing a little framework complexity, I feel, is worth it.
Don
Ted Husted wrote:
On 11/22/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The goal is to map the com.company.actions.member.ViewAction to
http://company.com/member/view.action
To do this, we need to process the ViewAction class name by extracting
the part before Action and lowercasing the first character.
Why not follow the same convention as the Action class?
http://company.com/member/View.action
works just the same.
Anyone who wants lowercase actions could just style the class with a
lowercase name. Java doesn't care about the case of a classname. It's
just a Sun convention.
* http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConventions.doc8.html#367
If the Sun convention is that the initial letter of a class name is
upper case, then perhaps we should follow suit, and adopt the
convention that action names should be styled like class names.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
