> > Umm... We're not talking about changing the return type... > We're talking about removing the Action Interface. > > b: If you remove the Action interface you have to do > something with the > getAction() method on the ActionProxy, right? My test cases > usually have to cast this object to ValidationAware, thus > returning Object doesn't really change much (ie you're still > going to have to cast it). >
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the return type of execute() and other like methods... > > I don't see why we'd want to do this... If we don't remove > the execute() method, there's no reason to create a separate > interface without it. > > b: I thought that was the whole point?! You didn't want to > tie your actions explicitly to the execute() method. I'm all > in favor of leaving the Action class and ActionSupport as is! > I was just suggesting a way to leverage the code in > ActionSupport without mandating the use of execute(). I agree > with your comment 100%. > You showed 2 interfaces, one still containing the execute() method. If we're not getting rid of the Interface altogether, which is what I'm suggesting, then lets not just create another Interface. Jason ------------------------------------------------------- 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
