snip/
I guess I have to reiterate what others have said earlier today: how do
you deal with handling or enforcing composition order? I.e. are you
implicitly assuming/requiring that the various elements in the chain are
orthogonal with respect to changes in the input/output stream or
changes in
And to add another pedantic log to the fire... :)
Quoted from dictionary.com because it's easier than looking it up in
a real text:
---
et al
adv 1: used as an abbreviation of `et alii' (masc. plural) or `et
aliae' (fem. plural) or `et alia' (neut. plural) when referring to a
--- PILGRIM, Peter, FM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--//--
I chose my words carefully when I said ActionContext interface. I
*think* we can all agree that if we added this it should be
an interface
:-).
David Graham wrote:
--- PILGRIM, Peter, FM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--//--
I chose my words carefully when I said ActionContext interface. I
*think* we can all agree that if we added this it should be
an interface
:-).
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Joe Germuska wrote:
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:06:59 -0500
From: Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
At 12:48 -0700 8/12/03
PILGRIM, Peter, FM wrote:
Would this new ActionForward be created each time like it is now?
ActionForwards (or FowardConfigs) are instantiated when the Struts
Config is digested and stored in a Map. FindForward then returns the
instance directly from the Map. So they are already singleton
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
In addition, commons-chain provides a couple of layers of Context
implementation (optional, compiled only if you have the corresponding
APIs) for web applications:
Actually optional compiling doesn't work, I believe in commons-chain but
could be the contrib.
I was
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Byrne, Steven wrote:
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:07:42 -0400
From: Byrne, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
snip/
I guess I
-Original Message-
From: Micael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, Peter,
Yah, there are some that don't like free knowledge or
listening. So there
was no way to not offend some people. I appreciate that.
Why I don't
know, and I don't need to know. But, I have a watch. LOL.
At 12:48 -0700 8/12/03, David Graham wrote:
The main goal of an ActionContext being passed to Action.execute() methods
would be to separate Actions from the Servlet API so that you could write
Actions to respond to Porlets. It would also serve to stabalize the
execute() method's interface and
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Ted Husted wrote:
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:33:31 -0400
From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
This threw me at first too
David Graham wrote:
What I think we're seeing here
is that we've outgrown our ActionForward declarations and need some new
ones. I'm fine with adding a SuccessAction but would really like to see
us discuss future possibilities in this area.
This may not be what you meant, but I've been thinking
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--//--
I chose my words carefully when I said ActionContext interface. I
*think* we can all agree that if we added this it should be
an interface
:-).
----
Why would want the ActionContext to be an interface?
: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:02 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
At 9:07 PM -0400 8/12/03, Byrne, Steven wrote:
I guess I have to reiterate what others have said earlier today: how do
you deal with handling or enforcing composition order? I.e
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 August 2003 14:47
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Graham wrote:
What I think we're seeing here
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Mainguy, Mike wrote:
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:05:15 -0400
From: Mainguy, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Struts Developers List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
I think
David Graham wrote:
No, I was thinking Actions would be passed an ActionContext in their
execute() method similar to how Servlets know about a ServletContext. The
ActionContext would contain the HttpServletRequest, form bean, etc. and
would serve to keep the API stable while allowing flexibility
At 21:36 -0700 8/13/03, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Ted H more or less suggested this, but I think the way to go is to
give each command an opportunity to validate any contract
pre-conditions, like expecting certain beans to be defined in the
context. You could even just leave this up to
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Graham wrote:
What I think we're seeing here
is that we've outgrown our ActionForward declarations and need some
new
ones. I'm fine with adding a SuccessAction but would really like to
see
us discuss future possibilities in this area.
Sigh! I cannot stand bad grammar, so once again I must remind my nerd
friends that et al strictly applies to people, and that an ActionForward,
while dear to my heart, is just not a person. LOL! I hope you take this
as interesting and new knowledge and not as a pain in the patoosh. Bye 'd
Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:37 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
One of the potential problems in a Context-based environment is knowing
which keys you are using
Just a little me-too here, but I think both Ted and David have good
points. Ted's approach to adding a controller to the ActionForward
is a relatively small change to the infrastructure that can offer a
lot of gain. And I've been interested in seeing some kind of
ActionContext class for
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 07:48:57 +0100
From: Peter A. Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
Craig R
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Sgarlata Matt wrote:
In terms of making the infrastructure available to callers, it's pretty
clear how passing a context object around makes the infrastructure
available to anyone who needs it. Are there other options for how you'd
make the infrastructure available
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
So we could have convenience methods such as
StrutsWebContext scontext = (StrutsWebContext)context;
// Where ``StrutsWebContext'' is a type of ``ServletWebContext''
ActionForm form = scontext.getActionForm();
ActionMapping
Comment at the bottom of this message...
- Original Message -
From: Craig R. McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Mainguy, Mike wrote
the patch is here:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18002
This one needs to be in a 1.1 release.
-TPP
-
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Joe Germuska wrote:
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:01:30 -0500
From: Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
At 9:07 PM -0400 8/12
--- Peter A. Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Graham wrote:
--- PILGRIM, Peter, FM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--//--
I chose my words carefully when I said ActionContext interface. I
*think* we can all
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Ted Husted wrote:
Since, I'm lead to understand Craig finds http hard to say when he
gives talks =:)
Ah, you've heard me trip over that one? :-).
I actually like web better than http for a different reason -- it
doesn't presume the one true way protocol will be around
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--//--
The idea would be to give ActionForward a type property for a Java
class. If the property is specified, instead of just taking
the path as
it stands, the Controller would call a prepare method on the
Ted Husted wrote:
Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
If the interface was supposed to be environment free what would
this interface be?
Have a look at the abstract WebContext in the Craig's new Chain of
Responsibility package.
http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/nightly/commons-chain/
So,
:11 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
Comment at the bottom of this message...
- Original Message -
From: Craig R. McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: RE
At 9:07 PM -0400 8/12/03, Byrne, Steven wrote:
I guess I have to reiterate what others have said earlier today: how do
you deal with handling or enforcing composition order? I.e. are you
implicitly assuming/requiring that the various elements in the chain are
orthogonal with respect to changes in
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
So we could have convenience methods such as
StrutsWebContext scontext = (StrutsWebContext)context;
// Where ``StrutsWebContext'' is a type of ``ServletWebContext''
ActionForm form = scontext.getActionForm();
ActionMapping mapping =
Micael wrote:
Sigh! I cannot stand bad grammar, so once again I must remind my nerd
+++
friends that et al strictly applies to people, and that an
~~~ ^ ^
ActionForward, while dear to my heart, is just not a person. LOL! I
* ew%U(R**
Hi, Peter,
Yah, there are some that don't like free knowledge or listening. So there
was no way to not offend some people. I appreciate that. Why I don't
know, and I don't need to know. But, I have a watch. LOL.
Micael
At 12:50 AM 8/13/2003 +0100, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
Micael wrote:
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
One of the potential problems in a Context-based environment is knowing
which keys you are using to store and retrieve stuff -- obviously, the
producer and consumer of a piece of data need to agree. It is also
important that people looking at a Command should be able to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Mainguy, Mike wrote:
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:03:14 -0400
From: Mainguy, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Struts Developers List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
This conversation
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Mike Jasnowski wrote:
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:50:29 -0400
From: Mike Jasnowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ActionForwards, et al
--- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a little me-too here, but I think both Ted and David have good
points. Ted's approach to adding a controller to the ActionForward
is a relatively small change to the infrastructure that can offer a
lot of gain. And I've been interested in
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My only concern would be using the term context to imply more than one
object.
IMHO, there should be a functional non-httpd framework below Struts,
that would provide things like a Context Object, which would be a
generic version of the
My only concern would be using the term context to imply more than one
object.
IMHO, there should be a functional non-httpd framework below Struts,
that would provide things like a Context Object, which would be a
generic version of the HttpRequest. At the Stuts level, you could then
have
Hi
Some time ago I submitted a couple of refactorings to the
DispatchAction/LookupDispatchAction classes. Since there was a recent
discussion on these actions, I was wondering if that patch was going to
be submitted for 1.2. Is there anything else I need to do?
the patch is here:
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Graham wrote:
No, I was thinking Actions would be passed an ActionContext in their
execute() method similar to how Servlets know about a ServletContext.
The
ActionContext would contain the HttpServletRequest, form bean, etc.
and
would serve
. We've
already added something like you
describe to our application.
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:47 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED
, it becomes
easier for people to Do The Right Thing.
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:47 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David
47 matches
Mail list logo
