Joseph Ottinger wrote:
I didn't mean to say that the current way should go. I just meant that instead of having it be THE way it could be generalized to be "a way", i.e. "delegate to action itself".Joseph Ottinger wrote:* Validation. Clunky design, and not enough loosely coupled to the action.I personally *like* how webwork currently handles validation. This is one of Struts' weakest points, and webwork's solution rocks. How would you suggest it be done?There needs to be a way to separate the validation from the action, so that different validation rules can be applied to an action, and also implemented with different strategies (using formproc or regexps or whatever).Well, Struts has a separate validation step, and it SUCKS. You can use whatever validation mechanism you want in the form beans, and it's retarded. Webwork's lifecycle validation needs documentation, and since it's a simple method (that relies on side-effects) it's trivial to use. Maybe the side-effect issue could be fixed - and the return value could be customized. But honestly, the approach is right. IMHO.
You DON'T want it to do it "correctly"?! If there's a more general way to do "side-effects" and chaining happens to fit in there, and is also easy to implement (frameworkwise and appwise), then why not?Not quite sure yet. It just feels wrong. I think there needs to be a separation between the action being executed and the side-effects of that action (and the examples I've seen so far indicate that this is what chaining is used for mostly). Somewhat like the separation of servlets and servlet filters. This would tie in with the interceptor handling too.I'll wait for more on this. I really don't like the idea of webwork focusing more on doing it "correctly" than "doing it" - webwork's trivial to use and very clear once you grok it's mindset.
I was saying I agreed with you. That's what I was bringing up when I was talking about formtags being refactored to be more WW-friendly - abstracting everything out so that the "tags" were reusable in different view technologies.
Oh ok.
That's more to do with just writing a new dispatcher then. Trivial. Just do it. Really.So it doesn't require a servlet engine at all? Docs, docs, docs.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Ă–berg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senselogic
Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
