Isn't this is a violation of basic programming principals - don't put lots of data into a string? :)
Could we just make a 'ViewObject' that is returned instead? (ie for backward compatibility - ViewObject.getString() returns the current think - so no change?) That is confusing (rereading) - basically, we should pass around objects not strings when representing more than one idea? Cheers, Mike On 5/11/02 11:45 AM, "Patrick Lightbody" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words: > A while back when Rickard asked what else, besides GenericDispatcher, was > needed to make WebWork a more generic command framework, I responded with > the following list: > > -Ditch JavaBeans, replace with OGNL > -Provide more dispatchers based on GenericDispatcher (SOAP, Servlet, Swing, > etc) > -make configuration more powerful (but still simple as always) > -provide libraries/tags for all supported views > -documentation overhaul, inlcuding a best practices guide > -lots of examples that aren't web-based (SOAP and Swing, especially) > -an implementation for the Wafer project (http://www.waferproject.org) > -support a flexible input validation/type conversion system for all > dispatchers > > I believe I've nailed down, in words, why the current configuration is > sub-optimal. The Configuration object uses a single method: > > String get(String) > > This means that even though something like actions.xml is in a nice > structure, it eventually gets pushed back down to the structure that > views.properties uses. For example, take a look at this from > ConfigurationViewMapping: > > returnValue = Configuration.get(actionName+"!"+command+"."+aViewName); > ... > returnValue = Configuration.get(actionName+"."+aViewName); > > As you can see, not only is the view mapping but also the CommandAware stuff > (something inherently built in to ActionSupport only, meaning it shouldn't > be in core configuration stuff). This is a very flat structure. It also > doesn't leave room for allowing us to specify parameters for our actions. An > example of this is: > > Say I have a SendEmail action. I want to be able to use the aciton in > various places. It sends generic emails out, so I want to re-use it. A > parameters to be passed in would be the "subject", as well as the "message" > body. I'd be very nice to be able able to alias SendConfirmationEmail and > also SendPasswordEmail: > > SendConfirmationEmail would be mapped to SendEmail but would have two > paramters auto set (as in my code doesn't need to do this): subject and > message. Same goes for SendPasswordEmail. > > By using an ActionConfig (see sandbox/xwork/config) you can achieve this. > > -Pat > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in > Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be > fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
