I didn't see the follow-up post, but played with the same idea. The nice part about using a base Action is that you might not even need to get the servlet involved. The Action could lookup the exception forwarding itself. I believe it could be done without any code changes at all.
But using bunches of base Actions eventually leads to inheritance problems. I'm just thinking that we might move toward the Exception signature, or equivalent, eventually becoming the default. So, a place to start might be to fix the controller to call a different signature instead, effectively deprecating the original perform when this mode is being used. Or maybe we need to do the multiple controller thing, so you could send some URIs to an ExceptionController and leave others with the original. -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA. -- Custom Software ~ Technical Services. -- Tel +1 716 737-3463 -- http://www.husted.com/struts/ Laine Donlan wrote: > > Regarding the declarative exception handling, never really heard much > since the last posting I made about it. But in that I proposed keeping > the default perform signature and adding another signature that could be > used to accomplish the try{}catch(Exception ){} semantics I was looking > for. Basically the base Action perform would call the lower level hook > and handle any exception by making it the root of a SevletException to > be handled by the Servlet. I really think this keeps existing Struts > apps from breaking while providing a more flexible environment for > future development. > > I can repost this code if necessary. Thoughts? > > Laine > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 6:07 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Future Struts releases > > So, now that 1.0.1 is in the queue, we may want to make some decisions > regarding 1.1. > > [taglibs] > > Personally, I think the existing changes to the tags along probably > justify a release on their own. Though, we need to add some > documentation there. Arron's nested taglib looks pretty cool, and I'd > like to slip that in too. > > [Tiles,Validator] > > The next question is whether David and Cedric are interested in > proposing their components to Taglibs or the Commons, or would prefer to > leave them here. Your call, guys. I believe that you have both indicated > an interest in broadening the audience for this components, so I say go > for it. Of course, we would add both to the Users Guide, and may even > end up requiring the JARs as we do for the Commons components. > > [JARs] > > How do people feel about making the rest of the Struts JARs more > granular? Maybe we should be breaking this up so each package or taglib > gets its own JAR, so we could have > > struts-action.jar > struts-actions.jar > struts-html.jar > struts-logic.jar > struts-bean.jar > struts-template.jar > struts-upload.jar > struts-util.jar > > I think the general trend is toward finely-grained JARs. Down the road, > I could envision people using the struts-action.jar, but not needing any > (or all of) the taglibs. > > [Role-Based Actions] > > I'm going to try and get Nic Hobb's security package in play next week > > http://husted.com/struts/resources/struts-security.htm > > and if it lives up to its reputation, I would probably want to commit > it. Would anyone have any qualms with this? > > [Declarative Exceptions] > > Any ideas about how we could put this into play using its own signature > (throwing Exception) and still support the original signature. I like > the idea, but I would also like to do it right. This won't be the last > time a problem with changing signatures comes up. There would be ways to > do it using a different base Action, but that gets messy as a standard > approach. > > This might be a 1.2 issue anyway, since there hasn't been a working > package out there for people to use. > > Now that Martin's tapped the keg, we might start thinking in terms of > more rapid releases. > > We might even start taking notes on a Struts 2.0, that might make > changes that would be a Good Thing, but would break too much of the 1.0 > base. Many of the class names comes to mind ;-) I mean how many things > can we call "Action" anyway ;-) The 2.0 codebase might also leverage > filters and other new technologies. > > -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA. > -- Custom Software ~ Technical Services. > -- Tel +1 716 737-3463 > -- http://www.husted.com/struts/ > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
