Hello
In an action i am having the following
path = ".";
a.setRedirect(true);
a.setPath(path.toString());
..
at the path assing a URL as http://www.yahoo.com or http://www.google.com
I want my action to access some informations from a database using a
parame
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:19:31 +0530, Vamsee Kanakala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Germuska wrote:
>
> > I don't know if we've all landed on most people's kill-filters or
> > what, but one gets the sense that what some of us are interested in
> > arguing thoroughly about is of little import to
Joe Germuska wrote:
I don't know if we've all landed on most people's kill-filters or
what, but one gets the sense that what some of us are interested in
arguing thoroughly about is of little import to regular users.
I'm as 'regular' a user as you can get, but I thoroughly enjoy these
technical
This is probably obvious, but you can choose to validate other than in
the ActionForm, which I do, and not validate in the Action as well,
which I also do. I leave validation to a validation application which
sits between the business logic and the view for me.
Jack
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:33:08
Hijack alert!
At 11:09 AM -0500 3/18/05, Rick Reumann wrote:
Well, actually I like to have my own validate() method in each of my
Dispatch Actions. I don't like having the framework call validate
for me. One of the main reason is that if I'm in my action and I
manually call my own action's valid
There are a "jillion" solutions, of course. I still think, and maybe
I am stating it too much, that the solution should be framework and
definitely should not be in a session object. I do think that
application data should be handled and have suggested a StrutsState
application in application sco
On Fri, March 18, 2005 11:46 am, Rick Reumann said:
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote the following on 3/18/2005 11:34 AM:
>
>> At one point in time, and it might still stand, I don't
>> know, I had the record in the Army for typing speed. I'm pretty quick
>> :)
>
> I'll have to start calling you Radar:)
- Original Message -
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 4:34 PM
> Good question about what happens with setupItems when validation fails...
> I didn't think of that situation when I did it... Looking at the code,
> NONE of the setupItems would be ex
Frank W. Zammetti wrote the following on 3/18/2005 11:34 AM:
At one point in time, and it might still stand, I don't
know, I had the record in the Army for typing speed. I'm pretty quick :)
I'll have to start calling you Radar:) Although I think he was probably
a pretty slow typist (faster than K
On Fri, March 18, 2005 11:09 am, Rick Reumann said:
> Ok, not going down that road..wacko:)
> But seriously
> though, you said you had about 2000 lines of code between your
> ActionForms. How much time do you think it takes you type out all those
> getters and setters for all those properties?
Frank W. Zammetti wrote the following on 3/18/2005 10:42 AM:
I'm not a believer in auto-generated code under any circumstance, even
something as clearly mundane as getters and setters.
Ok, not going down that road..wacko:) But seriously
though, you said you had about 2000 lines of code between yo
On Fri, March 18, 2005 10:42 am, Rick Reumann said:
> No, you are correct and sorry for the confusion.
No worries mate! :)
> Yes there is some over head if you have to forward to the setup of
> another action (vs going right to the JSP), but to me that's a small
> price to pay for having a clean
Frank W. Zammetti wrote the following on 3/17/2005 10:19 PM:
I could be wrong here, so feel free to educate me if so... if I return a
forward from an Action that is a typical forward that references a JSP,
the request is essentially done being handled at that point, right? What
I mean by that is
On Fri, March 18, 2005 10:32 am, Rick Reumann said:
> Ok, then how about using separate ActionForms and after each submits
> copy the properties (BeanUtils) to a POJO that you are using in Session
> scope to hold the values you finally need. This way you have the
> flexible separate ActionForms but
Frank W. Zammetti wrote the following on 3/17/2005 10:23 PM:
Certainly I can see the reasoning behind that, but I would have to
disagree. What if down the road I need to use one of those screens
independant of that original flow? Isn't it just added complexity to
have all the extra stuff in th
On Fri, March 18, 2005 6:53 am, Joe Germuska said:
> Frank, you have a correct understanding.
Well, even a blind cat finds the litter box every now and again :) Good
to know I got it!
> In this specific case, my concern is that specifics of Jack's
> implementation seem unique to his coding appro
On Fri, March 18, 2005 1:53 am, Dakota Jack said:
> You can do anything like this, I think. But, you can do this sort of
> thing without chain too. What I mean, Frank, is that if you can list
> two ActionForms in your then that would be good.
> This is just a KISS principle, which I really belie
At 11:05 PM -0500 3/17/05, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
Well, I could certainly be wrong, but based on what others have said
related to this matter, my understanding is that you can define a
Chain in the chain-config file and then reference that chain on an
Action mapping so that in essence you exec
You can do anything like this, I think. But, you can do this sort of
thing without chain too. What I mean, Frank, is that if you can list
two ActionForms in your then that would be good.
This is just a KISS principle, which I really believe in, and I know
you do too.
Jack
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005
Well, I could certainly be wrong, but based on what others have said
related to this matter, my understanding is that you can define a Chain
in the chain-config file and then reference that chain on an Action
mapping so that in essence you execute a Chain instead of an Action if
you want.
Can
The composable request processor has nothing to do with setting up the
so far as I know, and applicatoin level uses of Chain
are irrelevant. So, v1.3 does not have any more of a framework level
solution than does v1.2.x. No?
Jack
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:34:10 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti
<[EMAIL P
Dakota Jack wrote:
> I think everyone has built solutions to the problem. But, the problem
> should be solved on the framework level, in my opinion.
And I would be one to agree with that.
But, here's the problem I think...
1.3 offers a framework-level solution for this. In fact, it's the core
of
I think everyone has built solutions to the problem. But, the problem
should be solved on the framework level, in my opinion.
Jack
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:19:06 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rick Reumann wrote:
> > First off, if you are using Struts you are always going t
Rick Reumann wrote:
To me this is simple.. use one form and give is Session scope. Perfect
for wizard stuff. You mentioned the sex screens are used to create a
record in the DB, so one form to capture what you need makes sense.
Certainly I can see the reasoning behind that, but I would have to
d
If you use one form, you don't ahve to give it session scope, do you?
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:02:01 -0500, Rick Reumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote the following on 3/17/2005 7:01 PM:
>
> > I have an application where there are six screens. They are used to
> > create a
Rick Reumann wrote:
First off, if you are using Struts you are always going through a
controller, even if the basic FowardAction, so even when you say you are
going "immediately" to another page you are still going through a
controller.
I could be wrong here, so feel free to educate me if so...
When you look at a line of such cases, Rick, the problems add up.
Suppose you have a workflow of five pages:
page1 --> page2 --> page3 --> page4 --> page5
With the suggestion, you have five ActionForms, each tightly knit to
the pages and four actions.
page1 ActionForm1 Action1 --> page2 ActionF
Frank W. Zammetti wrote the following on 3/17/2005 8:57 PM:
Argh... I love Baseball, have all my life, used to play from sunrise to
sunset during the summers of my youth, but is there really no more
pressing matters in this country for our elected representatives to be
dealing with than steroid
Frank W. Zammetti wrote the following on 3/17/2005 7:01 PM:
I have an application where there are six screens. They are used to
create a record in the database. When used this way, they do in fact
represent a wizard-type flow. However, you can also recall the items
from the database for editi
In fact I did know that :) As far as the records go, I just can't stop
thinking though that if the rules weren't in place when they were set, I
just can't bring myself to have a problem with them. So the McGwires
and Sosas of the world, in my mind, get a pass. The interesting case is
Bonds t
Frank W. Zammetti wrote the following on 3/17/2005 6:35 PM:
* I could "chain" Actions, i.e., forward to an Action instead of
immediately to the second pages' JSP, that is specifically designed to
get the values for that dropdown. Aside from the overhead of the extra
pass through the entire fram
As a baseball nut, those records are sacrosanct to me and I just hate
the idea of a record being the product of drugs. I am all for the
oversight. This is especially so since baseball enjoins a monopoly
because it is the officially recognized pastime. Did you know that?
Jack
On Thu, 17 Mar 20
I frankly view Tiles as one of those things that *can* be nice in some
cases, but more often than not just complicates matters. After all, it
is just the JSP include mechanism on steroids, and as we all saw today,
steroids are bad, mmmkay??
:)
Argh... I love Baseball, have all my life, used to
Exactly, if I understand you Leon. Using two actions is a hack. The
natural thing is one action. There is no reason at all to use two
actions.
Jack
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:44:55 +0100, Leon Rosenberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * I could read from the database in the first Action
> > (deleg
That's it! Frank nails it again! ///;-)
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:35:52 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me try and explain...
>
> Let's say I have a wizard-like interface to my site... One the first
> page I enter some values, let's say First Name, Last Name and Social
>
The situation you describe as the one in point is correct. However,
the whole point is to use one and not two actions. There is no
problem if you use two actions. But, then you have to chain actions.
Jack
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:09:26 -0500, Rick Reumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dakota Jac
>
> An example...
>
> I have an application where there are six screens. They are
> used to create a record in the database. When used this way,
> they do in fact represent a wizard-type flow. However, you
> can also recall the items from the database for editing, and
> the same screens ar
>
> An example...
>
> I have an application where there are six screens. They are
> used to create a record in the database. When used this way,
> they do in fact represent a wizard-type flow. However, you
> can also recall the items from the database for editing, and
> the same screens ar
What if what you have isn't truly a wizard but just a collection of
screens that *generally* are used in a standard flow?
An example...
I have an application where there are six screens. They are used to
create a record in the database. When used this way, they do in fact
represent a wizard-t
> * I could read from the database in the first Action
> (delegate to some business class hopefully!) and stick it
> directly in Request. But that breaks isolation between the
> pages. The Action associated with one page should not set up
> for another.
One thing I don't understand...
The a
> * I could read from the database in the first Action
> (delegate to some business class hopefully!) and stick it
> directly in Request. But that breaks isolation between the
> pages. The Action associated with one page should not set up
> for another.
One thing I don't understand...
The a
*I guess my question is what scenario are you guys mentioning that
is common for the cause of this concern? I'm guessing it is step 2.C
above? With the preponderance of possible struts questions that come
along this certainly is not 'that' common. I don't see that many
applications where every
Let me try and explain...
Let's say I have a wizard-like interface to my site... One the first
page I enter some values, let's say First Name, Last Name and Social
Security Number. I click Next.
Now, the next page that will be shown will prompt me to enter an address
for the person I just ente
Dakota Jack wrote the following on 3/17/2005 4:20 PM:
I am with Joe on this one. This situation is, at least for me, the
most common situation I face. Every page except the welcome page has
input for me.
Sorry, I'm not bringing this to the dev list because I'm first just
trying to understand wh
I am with Joe on this one. This situation is, at least for me, the
most common situation I face. Every page except the welcome page has
input for me. And, I have to redirect the welcome page because I need
data there too. I bet if you looked at the posts to the users list
seriatim you would fin
I find this a quite common experience, and I just posted a response
to Jack on the dev list outlining the direction I intend to take to
provide a solution. Also, as noted on the dev list, now that Struts
1.3 allows you to easily configure arbitrary String properties on
ActionMapping (ActionCon
Rick Reumann wrote the following on 3/17/2005 2:29 PM:
Convincing me that 'more' ActionForms are a good thing is going to be a
difficult task, but restate or post your summary propostion and I'll
'attempt' to look at it without any preconceived notions that you might
be crazy:)
Jack, I saw your
Do you have a summary of your view? and preferably a very simple flow
chart or example? There have been a trillion posts lately and haven't
had time to sift through them all.
All I can say is the concept of the ActionForm was initially proposed so
that the user can be given back exactly what he
I have put forward a very basis description of what I take to be a
compelling case for multiple ActionForms for Actions. I encourage any
of you to hammer what I say there, add to the facts, straighten out
the logic, etc., because for me this is an very important point. I am
surprised if it is not
49 matches
Mail list logo
