[
https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1865?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_41562
]
James Holmes edited comment on WW-1865 at 7/22/07 6:27 PM:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I can take care of implementing this. We just need to make a decision on how to
handle the type field from a backwards compatibility perspective. Here are the
options:
1) Leave the "type" field alone and add a "typeName" field.
2) Change the "type" field from Class to String (breaks backwards
compatibility).
3) Change the "type" field from Class to Object (should preserve backwards
compatibility). The code would do an instanceof check to see what type of
object it was and handle accordingly.
Option 3 seems reasonable to me, but I'm somewhat indifferent.
Anyone else have an opinion on how this should be implemented?
was:
I can take care of implementing this. We just need to make a decision on how to
handle the type field from a backwards compatibility perspective. Here are the
options:
1) Leave the "type" field alone and add a "typeName" field.
2) Change the "type" field from Class to String (breaks backwards
compatibility).
3) Change the "type" field from Class to Object (should preserve backwards
compatibility). The code would do an instanceof check to see what type of
object it was and handle accordingly.
Option 3 seems reasonable to me, but I'm somewhat indifferent.
Any one else have an opinion on how this should be implemented?
> Simplify Result Type Annotation by allowing same result types as XML
> configuration
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WW-1865
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1865
> Project: Struts 2
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Configuration
> Affects Versions: 2.0.6
> Reporter: Alex Kira
> Assignee: James Holmes
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.1.0
>
>
> When using Result annotations, we currently have to use class references to
> configure the result type. It would be much simpler and more consistent if
> we can use the same result types as the XML configuration, such as
> "redirect-action", "tiles", etc, instead of having to use class names like
> ServletActionRedirectResult .class and TilesResult.class.
> So instead of this:
> @Result(name="success", value="main", type=ServletActionRedirectResult .class)
> public class HomeAction extends ActionSupport {
> // ...
> }
> Be able to do this:
> @Result(name="success", value="main", type="redirect-action")
> public class HomeAction extends ActionSupport {
> // ...
> }
> or if we are keeping backwards compatiblity, something like this:
> @Result(name="success", value="main", typeName="redirect-action")
> public class HomeAction extends ActionSupport {
> // ...
> }
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
