Trying to get to the Wiki now to add a comment... Seem to be having some
network issues right now...
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
On Thu, March 17, 2005 2:06 pm, Dakota Jack said:
> I really understand your pain, Frank. I
I really understand your pain, Frank. I don't understand why Ted
thinks this is not a central problem or why it is okay for one action
to process and another action to setup but not okay for one action to
do both. I do think that somehow combining setup and processing is
crucial. We all have to
On Thu, March 17, 2005 12:56 pm, Dakota Jack said:
> This means that you EITHER have to use two actions, leading to all the
> nonsense of chaining actions (why do you think that is recurrent,
> Ted?), OR you have to make PAGE-A the same as PAGE-B, which you can
> only do for so long unless you want
Cool, I think. Do you mean you can do this with the ?
Sorry if this is a really stupid question. I have not looked at the
configuration of v1.3. If this is going to be possible, you will have
solved half the qusetions on the list.
Jack
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:06:04 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL
According to your logic, Ted, we should not do setups for forms? I
really don't understand your point at all.
Jack
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:09:03 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People have often brought up things like multiple ActionsForms up on
> the user list, but it seems like
Jack
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: POJO Actions and the ActionCommand interface
> > (Re: Configuration inheritance, module init code)
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:08:15 -0800, Dakota Jack
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
>
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:33:42 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the record: Since what I wanted looked more like a Command, I
> dropped the extension to CreateAction. Instead, I wired Spring to
> produce instances of DispatchCommand (in the commons-chain SVN repo),
> and I wrote
I would prefer if we could make
ActionMappings such that a single action could result in the
instantiation of two or more ActionForm objects rather than one.
Done. In Struts 1.3, ActionConfig supports an arbitrary map of
properties. Define one, "secondForm" whose value is the name of
another fo
(It was Konstantin Pribluda that wanted to trash ActionForms.)
People have often brought up things like multiple ActionsForms up on
the user list, but it seems like a misuse of the ActionForm to me.
An ActionForm is best used to represent the input needed to service a request.
Ideally, an Action
On Thu, March 17, 2005 9:25 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> You can't make things idiot-proof because the idiots are too clever.
I have hanging on my office wall a saying I got from an old boss of mine...
"Software development today is a constant struggle between developers
striving to make better
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:04 PM
> To: Struts Developers List; Dakota Jack
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: POJO Actions and the ActionCommand interface
> (Re: Configuration inh
I note below my biggest WISH for Struts that would be easy to
accommodate and which would transform the usefulness of Struts, in my
opinion, in a MAJOR way.
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:33:42 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jack, if you want to throw away ActionForm -- go for
> it!
I don't remember what the resolution was (or if there was one) for
version numbers. This being the first release since taglibs and
tiles were removed from the main distribution, I'm guessing a release
of those should be done as well? Are we calling those 1.3.0 too?
Hubert
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 1
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:07:13 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :) Hey, don't we have a new tradiition that says the first thing a new
> Committer has to do is volunteer to manage the next release. :)
>
> :) And I'm thinking we just gave someone a shiny new Commiter stripe :)
(Ooooh,
So, as this discussion seems to be winding down, I thought it might
be interesting to share that it turned out to be surpassingly easy to
implement the features I needed as extensions to the struts-core.
This is good, of course, because it lets us defer decisions that
raise strong opinions unti
--- Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is also instructive to observe the growing
> popularity (in
> enterprise Java circles) of IoC approaches to
> instantiating business
> and service objects (Spring, Hivemind,
> PicoContainer, etc.), which are
> implemented as POJOs and composed
I second the nugget idea and double the prize! ///;-)
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:01:11 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> > I'm thinking this post deserves a St.
> > Paddy's day award for being a
> > hidden nugget of gold in a very large pot :)
>
> I
-Original Message-
> I'm thinking this post deserves a St.
> Paddy's day award for being a
> hidden nugget of gold in a very large pot :)
I'm not entirely sure how to take that, but I've never been one to turn down an
award of any kind :)
I had my corned beef and cabbage on Sunday any
-Original Message-
> I'm thinking this post deserves a St.
> Paddy's day award for being a
> hidden nugget of gold in a very large pot :)
I'm not entirely sure how to take that, but I've never been one to turn down an
award of any kind :)
I had my corned beef and cabbage on Sunday any
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:04:50 -0500 (EST), Frank W. Zammetti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, March 16, 2005 1:47 pm, Joe Germuska said:
> > I disagree. Actions are not fine the way they are. They depend too
> > directly on the Servlet API, which is one of the reasons they are too
> > hard to
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:07:13 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:03:49 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Acknowledged. I'm just not ready to be a release manager, especially
> > for Struts. If someone is ready to be the release manager, they can
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:03:49 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Acknowledged. I'm just not ready to be a release manager, especially
> for Struts. If someone is ready to be the release manager, they can
> call a freeze and we can let some of this sit, but until then, I will
> keep m
Why don't we agree to build something that will work well when used
properly and let the "idjits" get idjits?
Jack
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:03:59 -0800, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:53:35 -0600, Michael Rasmussen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I under
I think if we bent the technology for "miscreants" this far, we may
eventually go back to the typewriter and carbon paper.
Jack
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:04:06 -0800, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:08:15 -0800, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On
+42 I cannot imagine the problem with using an interface. I would,
really, like to see what they are.
Jack
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:29:56 +0100, Manfred Wolff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted Husted wrote:
>
> >(Of course, you can do this now, just by using a standard Action to
> >call an Execu
I'm not sure how this is different from what I am proposing? I'm also
not sure you are saying that it is.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:09:29 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue is that some properties on an arbitrary object might be OK
> to populate from the request, and others mi
The issue is that some properties on an arbitrary object might be OK
to populate from the request, and others might not be. The
securityissue is that it's not only the properties on the object
itself, but properties on objects that the object might reference.
As Martin mentioned, once upon a time,
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:08:15 -0800, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:54:48 -0800, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I agree with Ted, and the reasoning he states. Indeed, in this
> > particular respect, Action *should* be inflexible because making
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:53:35 -0600, Michael Rasmussen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I understand what you're suggesting, and on the face of it, it seems
> > like a nice idea. However, I fear that including such a mechanism in
> > Struts would lead to serious security vulnerabilities in some pe
>
> I understand what you're suggesting, and on the face of it, it seems
> like a nice idea. However, I fear that including such a mechanism in
> Struts would lead to serious security vulnerabilities in some peoples'
> applications. This is because essentially *any* method on the POJO
> could end
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:27:02 -0600, Michael Rasmussen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This may have been proposed long ago I don't know, but I will throw it
> out there as it just popped into my head.
>
> I agree with those of you who are against POJO's, but I had a thought:
>
> Since Action is used
Ted Husted wrote:
(Of course, you can do this now, just by using a standard Action to
call an Execute method on your subclass of ActionForm.)
I don't know the exactly english word: Iwill taper a bit (zu deutsch
zuspitzen :-)
Most of real struts project do such things. They extend the Action to
This may have been proposed long ago I don't know, but I will throw it
out there as it just popped into my head.
I agree with those of you who are against POJO's, but I had a thought:
Since Action is used mostly to populate a VO from the Form Bean and
then delegate to some business logic facade (
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:08:58 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:41:45 -,
..
> The teams with which I've met want a web framework to harvest input
> values and render output values, so that their business classes can
> focus on turning input into
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:08:37 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wouldn't have a problem with an interface for Actions or ActionForms
> at this point in time. Most people will continue to use (or abuse) the
> base classes anyway.
Of course, by "point in time" I didn't mean the 1.3.0 t
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:41:45 -, Niall Pemberton > Having a
concrete Action (or ActionForm) doesn't prevent people from using
> Struts badly and I don't buy the argument that we shouldn't make the
> famework flexible in case people burn themselves. Having flexibilty would
> allow people to inova
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:47:51 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I agree with Ted, and the reasoning he states. Indeed, in this
> >particular respect, Action *should* be inflexible because making it an
> >interface would encourage you to use it incorrectly.
>
> I disagree. Actions
On Wed, March 16, 2005 1:47 pm, Joe Germuska said:
> I disagree. Actions are not fine the way they are. They depend too
> directly on the Servlet API, which is one of the reasons they are too
> hard to unit test.
I agree with that first part, however, I find the unit test point
interesting (not
At 9:54 AM -0800 3/16/05, Craig McClanahan wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:33:12 -0800 (PST), Konstantin Priblouda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, Actions are fine the way they are. The one and
> only problem is
> that people keep trying to use Actions
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:54:48 -0800, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Ted, and the reasoning he states. Indeed, in this
> particular respect, Action *should* be inflexible because making it an
> interface would encourage you to use it incorrectly.
How is an interface wi
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:33:12 -0800 (PST), Konstantin Priblouda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > IMHO, Actions are fine the way they are. The one and
> > only problem is
> > that people keep trying to use Actions (and Struts)
> > as a component of
> >
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:58:37 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 7:38 AM -0800 3/16/05, Konstantin Priblouda wrote:
> >--- Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just asking Jack what he
> meant when he wrote
> " I definitly don't think that this is a good idea." and "Thi
I don't have any issue with actually providing implementations like this,
although that wasn't my line of thinking. I was thinking more of changing
method signatures in things like ActionContext to use Objects rather than
the concrete class. So for example in ActionContext...replacing
void setActio
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Germuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 3:58 PM
> At 3:41 PM + 3/16/05, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >OK, "POJO Actions" is a bad example.
>
> perhaps, but I think having that in the subject line helped stir up
> all this discussion ;
At 10:29 AM -0500 3/16/05, Ted Husted wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:02:32 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, if I have a way to get my own ActionContext into my actions, then
I'm less concerned about the current mechanism for specifying a
custom ActionContext. I'd want to hear m
Ok Niall, you caught me... I was being a bit of a wise-ass. :) And you
are right, the feeback was centered around it not being targeted at 1.3.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but...
That kind of begs the question... if I were to implement what I did in
1.3, would there then be interest from
Sorry frank I had only half an eye on that thread when it was happening.
Wasn't the comments you got back that it was targeted at Struts 1.2 rather
than the current 1.3 development version. I didn't think it was criticised
for flexibilty, just that any solution to this kind of issue needs to be 1.3
At 7:38 AM -0800 3/16/05, Konstantin Priblouda wrote:
--- Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
What is your antecedent for "this"? Having an
ActionCommand
interface? Using an IoC container as an
ActionFactory? Having a
ThreadLocal store the current ActionContext?
action factory going
If we are saying that maximum flexibility in Struts is a good thing, may I
suggest re-opening my submitted patch for setupItems? If flexibility is
the goal (something I generally agree and have argued for in the past),
isn't my work very much a move in that direction?
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founde
From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My feeling is that POJO Actions might encourage people to couch their
> business logic as POJO actions :)
>
> It's unlikely that such a class could be a true POJO. It would have to
> be bound to Struts in some way. Otherwise, the Action would not
> produce a
--- Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What is your antecedent for "this"? Having an
> ActionCommand
> interface? Using an IoC container as an
> ActionFactory? Having a
> ThreadLocal store the current ActionContext?
action factory going to IoC container for actions
exists already
At 7:07 AM -0800 3/16/05, Dakota Jack wrote:
This is where the present options (making the request processor
composable and providing a basis for business logic) goes "nuts" and
begins to toss the entire idea of Struts out the window. I definitly
don't think that this is a good idea.
This is a hug
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:02:32 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, if I have a way to get my own ActionContext into my actions, then
> I'm less concerned about the current mechanism for specifying a
> custom ActionContext. I'd want to hear more on the
> ActionContextFactory threads
This is where the present options (making the request processor
composable and providing a basis for business logic) goes "nuts" and
begins to toss the entire idea of Struts out the window. I definitly
don't think that this is a good idea.
This is a huge move which has nothing to do with the comp
Yes.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:59:36 -0500 (EST), Frank W. Zammetti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, March 16, 2005 9:56 am, Dakota Jack said:
>
> > I like to think
> > of calling objects/classes/interfaces as more like a very organized
> > "go to" command in procedural processing.
>
>
> You
On Wed, March 16, 2005 9:56 am, Dakota Jack said:
> I like to think
> of calling objects/classes/interfaces as more like a very organized
> "go to" command in procedural processing.
You of course mean Gosub, right?!? :)
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technolo
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:01:41 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:22:34 -0800, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The idea, I thought, was to use the Commands to supplant the
> > RequestProcessor with a composable request processor.
> Refactoring the Reques
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:33:12 -0800 (PST), Konstantin Priblouda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > IMHO, Actions are fine the way they are. The one and
> > only problem is
> > that people keep trying to use Actions (and Struts)
> > as a component of
> >
These are, of course, huge questions. And, I definitely agree with
Ted on the POJO business. We need to remember, I think, that Actions
are part of the framework, not part of applications. Unfortunately,
too often the team builds functionality that should be part of
applications and insinuates i
Alright! Well, I succeeded in generating some discussion, which is
fantastic -- thanks to everyone who weighed in.
At 8:48 PM -0800 3/15/05, Martin Cooper wrote:
I'm not sure I see the reasoning / benefit of POJOs as Actions.
Well, here's my specific case. As we design this new application, I
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:22:34 -0800, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The idea, I thought, was to use the Commands to supplant the
> RequestProcessor with a composable request processor.
In Struts 1.0, requests were processed using a lump of code in
ActionServlet. To keep it organized, th
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, Actions are fine the way they are. The one and
> only problem is
> that people keep trying to use Actions (and Struts)
> as a component of
> a business logic framework, rather than as an
> *adjunct* to a business
> logic framework.
I'd like to di
I would tend to agree with Martin.
My feeling is that POJO Actions might encourage people to couch their
business logic as POJO actions :)
It's unlikely that such a class could be a true POJO. It would have to
be bound to Struts in some way. Otherwise, the Action would not
produce a result that w
+42
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:23:29 +0100, Manfred Wolff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dakota Jack wrote:
>
> >The idea, I thought, was to use the Commands to supplant the
> >RequestProcessor with a composable request processor. Some of the
> >present suggestions are so radical as to provide some q
Dakota Jack wrote:
The idea, I thought, was to use the Commands to supplant the
RequestProcessor with a composable request processor. Some of the
present suggestions are so radical as to provide some question whether
Struts is going to be Struts. This is especially so of the suggestion
that we ti
Joe Germuska wrote:
I wrote:
Yes... I'm sorry that that discussion has stalled. Although I don't
even know if that's an incremental step towards a POJO action -- it's
practically all you need, plus a little more smarts in the
CreateAction command. I'll go post a ping.
OK, so I actually starte
I've looked at 1.3 and the Chain stuff, but not actually tried it out.
However the original RequestProcessor is still there and presumably still
works. The default RequestProcessor is now the chain
ComposableRequestProcessor, so to use the original one would have to be
configured. No one (to my kn
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:59:47 -, Niall Pemberton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Dakota Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:22 AM
>
> > The idea, I thought, was to use the Commands to supplant the
> > RequestProcessor with a composab
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:48 AM
> I'm not sure I see the reasoning / benefit of POJOs as Actions. The
> implication is that some method that wasn't designed to be invoked as
> a command / action can do something usefu
- Original Message -
From: "Dakota Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:22 AM
> The idea, I thought, was to use the Commands to supplant the
> RequestProcessor with a composable request processor. Some of the
> present suggestions are so radical as to provide some
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:34:13 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote:
> >Yes... I'm sorry that that discussion has stalled. Although I don't
> >even know if that's an incremental step towards a POJO action --
> >it's practically all you need, plus a little more smarts in the
> >Cr
The idea, I thought, was to use the Commands to supplant the
RequestProcessor with a composable request processor. Some of the
present suggestions are so radical as to provide some question whether
Struts is going to be Struts. This is especially so of the suggestion
that we tie the ActionForm an
- Original Message -
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:52 AM
> I was one of the proponents of POJOs as Actions a week or so ago, but
> upon further reflection I have to ask the question... what does this
> really get anyone? I'm not really s
I was one of the proponents of POJOs as Actions a week or so ago, but
upon further reflection I have to ask the question... what does this
really get anyone? I'm not really sure I see the benefit to it any
more. In fact, it would seem that keeping Actions as Actions makes it a
little safer in
I wrote:
Yes... I'm sorry that that discussion has stalled. Although I don't
even know if that's an incremental step towards a POJO action --
it's practically all you need, plus a little more smarts in the
CreateAction command. I'll go post a ping.
OK, so I actually started looking at using PO
At 1:16 PM -0600 3/15/05, Hubert Rabago wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:23:09 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Joe had mentioned wanting to move module init code to the
> >ModuleConfigFactory.
...
It wasn't really discussed, just mentioned. :) The point was to move
the code out of
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:23:09 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Joe had mentioned wanting to move module init code to the
> >ModuleConfigFactory.
>
> I did? ;-)
>
> Seriously, though, I don't quite remember the details of that
> discussion -- do you happen to have any pointers to
Joe had mentioned wanting to move module init code to the
ModuleConfigFactory.
I did? ;-)
Seriously, though, I don't quite remember the details of that
discussion -- do you happen to have any pointers to the archives?
I think in general, the idea is to make ActionServlet do little more
than rec
My plan is to support configuration inheritance for form beans,
forwards, exception handlers, and actions. Should I finish them all
up, present them all, then check them in, or should I check in code as
they become ready?
At the moment, form beans are done. Exceptions, forwards, and actions
have
79 matches
Mail list logo
