Comment at the bottom of this message... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: RE: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Mainguy, Mike wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:03:14 -0400 > > From: "Mainguy, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: 'Struts Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction) > > > > This conversation seems to be a by-product of looking at the Action classes > > as children of the servlet and consumers of messages instead of stand-alone > > entities. > > One intriguing way of dealing with this (IMHO) would be to consider elements > > as being able to "Pull" the required components out of some other area > > (Context?) (much like how the Turbine framework does). Instead of Chaining > > commands or passing a context to every execute(), you would make available a > > generic application infrastructure that you could pull your required > > components from. > > Really this is probably just a semantic difference as the implementation (in > > my mind) would probably be much the same, but, to me when you word it as > > something 'Pulling' something out of the Context it makes more sense (errr, > > I can visualize it better at least) than trying to guess what should be > > 'Passed' along. > > Comments? > > > > Doesn't "pulling" something from some application infrastructure imply > that somebody else "pushed" it into that infrastructure? For example, if > you expect to find the HttpServletRequest object in there, presumably the > controller must have seeded that content. It's also perfectly reasonable > for one Command in a Chain (in commons-sandbox/chain terms) to push > something into the Context that another Command executed later will need. > > In terms of making the infrastructure available to callers, it's pretty > clear how passing a context object around makes the infrastructure > available to anyone who needs it. Are there other options for how you'd > make the infrastructure available without passing it? I haven't thought > of any. Sorry if this was already said, but couldn't you use JNDI if you wanted to use a "pull" approach? I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not, but I thought I would throw it out there. Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
