- Original Message -
From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I obviously don't understand the use-case well enough to have a
> reasonable opinion. Needing the keys passed as parameter confuses me,
> since the class already has all that information. Why muddy the
> signature and tell it so
Erik Hatcher wrote:
> Oops, sorry got it. I still am lobbying for 'key' to be included in the
> method invoked by DispatchKeyAction. Pretty please?
I obviously don't understand the use-case well enough to have a
reasonable opinion. Needing the keys passed as parameter confuses me,
since the
- Original Message -
From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Personally, I would then consider the keys a form of input and make them
> part of the ActionForm.
But then we are back to having the Action have a whole bunch of 'if'
statements for each key. Sure, a new ActionForm base-class
Erik Hatcher wrote:
> No its not. What if I want to map several keys to a single method? That is
> perfectly legitimate use-case where only one minor thing needs to change
> between different key values.
Personally, I would then consider the keys a form of input and make them
part of the Action
From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> With DispatchKeyAction, the key is used to call the method itself and
> does not need to be passed. Since reflection is being used, the key is
> implicit in the name of the method invoked.
No its not. What if I want to map several keys to a single method?
Erik Hatcher wrote:
> Obviously my only use-case/need right now is to have an additional String
> key parameter passed to a perform-like method. So I'm ok with locking it
> into that method signature if that'll get it committed, but I still think a
> DispatchAction subclass should be more extensi
- Original Message -
From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > - Standardizing on the class names. I suggest yours be renamed
> > LookupDispatchKeyAction, since LookupAction is pretty generic and there
will
> > be several "lookup" style base classes.
>
> I'd like to keep the "dispatch"
Erik Hatcher wrote:
> - Standardizing on the class names. I suggest yours be renamed
> LookupDispatchKeyAction, since LookupAction is pretty generic and there will
> be several "lookup" style base classes.
I'd like to keep the "dispatch" moniker out of this one, since it makes
it sounds like it
- Original Message -
From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > preference. Therefore I like throwing a ServletException better. Any
other
> > pros/cons to either approach?
>
> The Action is the highest layer, and there is no guarantee that there
> will be a JSP with an error directive.
