"Steve Raeburn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ParameterDispatchAction fulfils much the same function as > LookupDispatchAction but its implementation is almost identical to > DispatchAction. > > It would be redundant to go through getKeyMethodMap() to get the method name > because it is supplied in the parameter. I may have misunderstood what you > are suggesting but to me it would make more sense to add to DispatchAction > than to Lookup DispatchAction. > > It *may* make some sense to combine all three resolution methods into > DispatchAction and either have DispatchAction try to find a handler using > all three methods or set the method via a configuration parameter. > > I worry that that would be more confusing to the user that having three > distinct classes that you can explain quite simply: > > To dispatch to a method identified via a request parameter, use > DispatchAction. > To dispatch to a method based on which button was clicked, use > LookupDispatchAction > To dispatch to a method based on the action path, use > ParameterDispatchAction
I'm +1 on this, other than on naming. I think ParameterDispatchAction is definitely the wrong name for the last of these. People are *far* more likely to think of the "Parameter" in the name as meaning a request parameter than they are to think of the "parameter" action mapping attribute. Perhaps MappingDispatchAction instead? I am -0 on combining all of this into one action. -- Martin Cooper > > I would prefer to add ParameterDispatchAction now and defer a decision about > merging the three actions. > To me, that would be 'the simplest thing that could possibly work' :-) > > Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: August 1, 2003 10:42 AM > > To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions > > > > > > So, what you really want is LookupDispatchAction without requiring the > > developer to create the map-related methods? I think you already get the > > abililty to combine CRUD related actions and things like that. If so, > > then implementing a default getKeyMethodMap() in LookupDispatchAction > > might accomplish the same goal, without requiring another action. Such a > > default implementation could examine the current LookupDispatchAction > > subclass and create the mapping information automatically. > > > > Don't get me wrong ... I like the idea behind what you're proposing. I > > just think we might already have it (with the potential to improve ease of > > use by not forcing people to implement getKeyMethodMap() for a common use > > case). > > > > > > Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
