2007/2/23, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Antonio Petrelli wrote: > 2007/2/23, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I guess I look at it differently. What we requires is a request object >> and a response object. In jsp, the page context acts as both. > > What about using varargs then? I mean using the form: > render(Object... contextItems, String definition); Maybe . . .though I think it would have to be: render(String definition, Object. . .contextItems);
Agreed! I will follow this path then.
I'm still not convinced that request and response doesn't make sense, but since we've already gone with generic objects for request items (which I like), I could be convinced that we should make number of req/res objects variable as well.
If you think that, for example, FreeMarker needs a request, a response and a Writer, then probably you will be "more" convinced :-)
>> I'm not sure how all controllers and view can't comply with that? > > Mmm... I've got another idea. Think of a TilesContextFactory that > cycles through a list of TilesContextFactoryItems (name changeable :-) > ), where each of them can recognize only one type of request/response > pair, and that return a TilesRequestContext if it recognizes them (or > null if not). Suppose that this list can be configurable: I think that > we solved all of our problems. > Together with varargs we can satisfy all needs. Yes, I like this idea very much, though I think it remains an implementation choice of the container. The basic container should definitely use this approach.
Agreed. For the moment I will refactor the BasicTilesContextFactory to work as it works now, but I will open an issue to be sure that will address it. All I want to do now is using varargs where needed. Thank you Antonio
