--- Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, I'm back. Now where were we... > > What you're suggesting is this? > > <action path="/myAction" > type="o.a.s.actions.SuccessAction"> > <forward name="success" path="/myPage.jsp"> > </action> > > <action path="/myOtherAction" > type="o.a.s.actions.SuccessAction" > parameter="oops"> > <forward name="oops" path="/myPage.jsp"> > </action> > > I honestly don't see the value in the second method. You've just added a > parameter to tell the action which forward to select when there is only > one > possible choice. You've also got two actions which do exactly the same > thing, but are configured differently.
That's a good point which raises another question. If the goal of SuccessAction is to forward to the one defined <forward> instance, why must we name it "success" or "oops"? Why can't SuccessAction call mapping.findForwards() and return the first forward it finds? Then we don't need to use the parameter attribute nor do we need to declare that "success" is the one right name for the forward. However, that makes SuccessAction a bit silly. If it's just going to forward to the first <forward> it finds, why not change the way we define forwards to be more natural and flexible? What I think we're seeing here is that we've outgrown our ActionForward declarations and need some new ones. I'm fine with adding a SuccessAction but would really like to see us discuss future possibilities in this area. > > My concern is that adding the parameter makes the use of the action a > little > less of a no-brainer (sometimes a *little* more complexity is all it > takes). In its proposed default state SuccessAction would still be a complete no-brainer. > > I would be grateful if you could give an illustration of an example > where > "success" couldn't be used. Most other actions can be identified as > having a > success or fail outcome (or something in between). To my mind this is an > action where the only possible outcome is success, so I can't see why > the > name would cause you so much trouble. Even if you're forwarding to an > error > page, the *action* is still successful. I've never said that "success" is a poor term or isn't used in most cases. I just don't think Struts should dictate the names of forwards to users. That is there choice and should be configurable. We all know that Action chaining isn't generally a smart move but sometimes it works out ok. Consider a RegisterAction that forwards to a LoginAction to login a user immediately after they register. RegisterAction might want to name its success forward "login". Admittedly, this isn't directly applicable to our SuccessAction situation but it does show that "success" isn't *always* the correct term. Also, not every Struts developer speaks english and may choose forward names in their native language. > > Please reconsider whether having the flexibility of adding the parameter > is > really necessary. I think that in the vast majority of cases it isn't > and > for the minority a custom action would be an option. > > However, if you're *really* set on having the parameter option then > let's go > with SuccessAction, with the forward name being supplied by the > parameter > and defaulting to "success" if none is supplied. Ok? > > But, only if you really, really, really insist ;-) I'd like to get your thoughts (and others) on my proposal at the beginning of this message. In short, we wouldn't use the parameter attribute nor would we define "success" as the only correct forward name. SuccessAction would forward to the first <forward> that's defined for it. I believe SuccessAction fills a current gap but is probably a temporary solution until we have a more unified/flexible forward declaration syntax. How "temporary" it is depends on how motivated we are to change it :-). David > > Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: August 5, 2003 6:52 AM > > To: Struts Developers List > > Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions > > > > > > --- Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is not a general purpose action. > > > > IMO, limited use inflexible actions don't belong in the Struts distro. > We > > should provide common actions to ease development but they should be > > configurable to the user's needs. > > > > > It is intended to do just one > > > thing > > > and that's forward the request to one place. > > > > My suggestion doesn't change that. > > > > > There is deliberately no > > > flexibility in the action. The flexibility comes from being able to > use > > > an > > > ActionFoward definition. > > > > > > We wouldn't be dictating anything because you always have the option > of > > > creating a custom action. However, if you want to do this right now > then > > > Struts *requires* that you create your own action. > > > > > > To enable naming the foward via parameter would IMHO be generalising > at > > > the > > > expense of usability. > > > > Please elaborate on this. I don't see any drawbacks to allowing > people > > the freedom of defining what forward the action points to. Hardcoding > a > > forward name with no option to configure it forces people into using > > semantics that may not be appropriate in their use case. > > > > > > > > SuccessAction already seems to be a common idiom and I think this > would > > > just > > > reflect what many people are already doing and make it just a little > bit > > > easier. > > > > I can't speak for anyone but me but all of my actions call the > business > > layer and forward to a success forward (not necessarily named > "success" > > though). I use <action forward=""> when all I need is to front a JSP > with > > an Action. The only improvement that SuccessAction provides is > allowing > > you to declare the forward with the more powerful <forward> element > and > > not having to write an action that merely forwards to it. Why must > that > > forward be arbitrarily named "success"? > > > > David > > > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: August 4, 2003 3:06 PM > > > > To: Struts Developers List > > > > Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I haven't suggested another way of specifying a forward. Just > > > providing > > > > > an > > > > > action that uses the existing, most common way of doing so. > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't want to add contextRelative attribute to <action> > > > because: > > > > > - it doesn't relate to the ActionMapping, but to the > ActionForward > > > > > - having the same attribute specified in two places would cause > > > > > confusion > > > > > > > > > > Although, SuccessAction is a trivial action, it does fill a gap > that > > > is > > > > > not > > > > > fully met by either <action forward=""> or ForwardAction. How > would > > > > > adding > > > > > it be bad for Struts? > > > > > > > > One thing that really bothers me about this action is that it > forces > > > the > > > > user to use "success" as the forward name. This isn't appropriate > in > > > > every use case and Struts shouldn't dictate this type of thing. > What > > > > about specifying the forward name in the "parameter" attribute? > Maybe > > > > even say that "success" is the default name if parameter isn't > > > provided? > > > > That gives you an action that just forwards to some ActionForward > > > without > > > > demanding that the forward be named "success". This would also > > > require a > > > > rename of SuccessAction to something more suitable (maybe > > > > ForwardingAction?). > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Sent: August 4, 2003 1:32 PM > > > > > > To: Struts Developers List > > > > > > Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > You're right <action forward=""> is module relative (despite > > > what it > > > > > > > says in > > > > > > > the Javadoc). However, I don't see how it can used with a > > > context > > > > > > > relative > > > > > > > path. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it needs a contextRelative attribute. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no contextRelative attribute on the action config > so > > > you > > > > > don't > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
