----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Peckham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 2) Meaningless method signatures, like > > execute(Mapping, Form, Request, > > Response). All the methods look the same, regardless > > of what data they're > > actually expecting. This often makes it necessary to > > go into the Java code > > just to figure out what data a method uses. Not to > > mention losing > > compile-time type checking. > > I fear you're making a big deal over nothing here. The > only real thing that you lose type checking on is the > Form. It does kind of suck that you have to know what > specific form to cast to. But, it's not that big a > deal, IMHO. >
I guess that here I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that he is making a big deal over nothing, but I disagree that it sucks that you have to know the type of ActionForm to cast to. Is this any different than working with Java Collections; you have to know what type of Object (and cast to that type) you are retrieving from the Collection? At least the central controller doesn't have to be concerned with the actual type of the ActionForm. As long as it IS an ActionForm, the controller is happy. Although I will say that I do see Collections that take any kind of Object as one of the weaknesses of Java. I really miss C++ template containers. I'm really looking forward to seeing what will be added to Java in this regard. Dave -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
