> If you DO want it, use ActionSupport - which subclasses the above and > provides a doValidation, doDefault, doExecute cycle. > > It _also_ provides backward compatibility (damn I sound like Hani > here!) which is a good thing as there is no real need to break it > unnecessarily? > > I maintain that 95% of web actions are neatest when done with 3-phase > support - it's what we use most in almost all our apps! Are we just > that different to the rest of the world? How do y'all do it? (Maybe > that will help me come to terms with removing it)
I think I still disagree with this approach. My issue is not so much whether or not people use this approach, I'm sure they will, but there are other valid approaches and b/c ActionSupport is a concrete class they'd be extended, they're tied down to a specific workflow implementation.
For example, I started off this app with the 3-phased model you've mentioned above. Soon after though, I switched to a 4-phase model
default -> validate -> confirm -> execute
I wouldn't be surprised if there are other, equally valid models. Needless to say, I'm a big fan of the idea of a pluggable workflow.
The other issue that I have is that it seems a waste to have the ValidationInterceptor validate your object when you know that you're going directly to the input page.
M
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
