DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16108>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16108 Newbie FAQ - Why is ActionForm a base class rather than an interface? Summary: Newbie FAQ - Why is ActionForm a base class rather than an interface? Product: Struts Version: Unknown Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: Enhancement Priority: Other Component: Documentation AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks to Craig...I hope I have sanitized this one enough. The MVC design pattern is very simple to understand. It is much more difficult to live with. You just need this little bit of Business Logic in the View logic or you need just that little bit of View logic in the Business tier and pretty soon you have a real mess. By making the ActionForm a class it is taking advantage of the single inheritance restriction of Java to it makes it more difficult for people to do things that they should not do. ActionForms implemented as interfaces encourage making the property types match the underlying Business tier instead of Strings, which violated one of the primary purposes for ActionForms in the first place (the ability to reproduce invalid input, which is a fundamental user expectation). ActionForms as an interface would also encourage using existing DAO objects as ActionForms by adding ‘implements ActionForm’ to the class. This is against the MVC design pattern goal of separation of the View and Business logic. Since the goal of struts is to enforce separation of the View and Business logic, it just makes more sense for Struts to own the ActionForm. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
