Is the XWork source browsable online anywhere, or do we have to check it out?
-Ted.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pushed properties don't have names, just positions, AFAIK.
>
> If you look at the code for ModelDrivenInterceptor my original reply might
> make more sense.
>
> Dave
>
> --- On Thu, 7/17/08, Gabriel Belingueres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From: Gabriel Belingueres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: Sanity-check regarding ModelDrivenInterceptor vs. stack order
>> To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008, 9:08 AM
>> The map would be just an auxiliary data structure to
>> maintain this
>> propertyName -> ownerObject mapping (I suppose you could
>> just iterate
>> on every object in the stack using reflection to ask about
>> its
>> properties, or some fancy method in commons-beanutils
>> library) but the
>> general idea is the following:
>>
>> Suppose you have in the stack an Employee object which has
>> a name
>> property (with its getter/setter). The Employee has pushed
>> by some
>> interceptor in the interceptor chain. The Map would hold
>> the
>> ("name"->employee) mapping.
>>
>> Suppose you have a ModelDriven action that returns in the
>> getModel()
>> method a Person object, which too has a name property. Now
>> when the
>> interceptor tries to push into the stack, the stack first
>> check if the
>> properties of this object is already in the map. Because
>> they share a
>> name property, you can warn the user that you are shadowing
>> then name
>> property of the employee object.
>>
>> Of course this checking would belong inside the ValueStack,
>> not in the
>> ModelDriverInterceptor.
>>
>>
>> 2008/7/17 Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > --- On Wed, 7/16/08, Gabriel Belingueres
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I believe that we could check on stack.push() if
>> the object
>> >> to push shadows some other object in the stack
>> with relative ease.
>> >>
>> >> The basic idea would be to use a
>> Map<String,Object>
>> >> where the key is the property name, and the value
>> is
>> >> the object in the stack with that property name.
>> If
>> >> the yet to push object has a property that is
>> already
>> >> in the Map, then it would shadow it (unless of
>> course
>> >> it is actually the same object), and a warn can be
>> >> logged/exception thrown (in devMode only).
>> >
>> > You lost me--why would we need to keep a shadow map?
>> >
>> > The current code checks if a refresh is needed: if it
>> is, the old object is removed via ArrayList.remove(Object),
>> and if appropriate, the new object is pushed (the stack
>> order change).
>> >
>> > To replace the old object ArrayList.indexOf(Object)
>> would retrieve the index and the new object would be set
>> with ArrayList.set(int, Object).
>> >
>> > There's still a potential stack depth issue,
>> though, since if the new value is null it's not
>> supposed to get put on the stack.
>> >
>> > Dave
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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]
>
>
--
HTH, Ted
http://husted.com/ted/blog/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
