IMHO, if we were writing Struts today, then this definitely would have been a factory in the first place. So making it a factory now seems reasonable, so long as someone is willing to do the work :)
My one concern is the ActionServlet reference in the signature. I don't feel good about adding any more http dependencies to interfaces we may have to live with for some time. But it may be unavoidable, and when we do start encapsulating http, this whole she-bang might be encapsulated as well. If you can do it over the weekend, and post a patch that people could review first, and you felt confident in the code, I would say that it could still make the 1.2.0 cut. I feel strongly that we need to address the remaining problem reports regarding pagePattern et cetera. I'm actively working on the module examples application now, but the application and the fixes aren't going to happen before Monday. Of course, an equally reasonable opinion would be to hold the patch for after the 1.2.0 roll, so that it can live in the nightly build for awhile. But it seems like a fairly straight-forward matter to me, and should either work or not. -Ted. On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 12:17:16 -1000 (HST), Don Brown wrote: > Yeah, I wasn't sure what to call them either. I think it would be > nice to have one that will create the form from the config, no > matter what type it is, but still have others that create the > specific type. This is mostly useful for testing as it makes it > easy to create dynaforms, a feature I've been hearing a lot. Of > course, it could just be two methods, and if you just wanted a > dynaform, create a FormBeanConfig and set dynamic to true. > > As for when, it doesn't matter. I could easily put it in over the > weekend, code and tests, but if we are trying to get 1.2 out the > door, it can wait. > > Don > > > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Martin Cooper wrote: > > >> Off the top of my head (meaning I haven't thought through all of >> the possible ramifications yet ;), I like this idea. I know that >> when I added factories to Commons FileUpload, it took the ability >> to customise things to a level that just isn't possible with >> straight 'new' coding. I can see how the same would be true for >> Actions as well. >> >> I'm not sure about the specific API you suggest. I assume by >> "default" you mean the non-dyna flavour? Something about the API >> doesn't "feel" right, but I'll try to give it some thought later >> and see if I can come up with anything better. >> >> BTW, I assume you're proposing this as a post-1.2.0 change? >> >> >> -- >> Martin Cooper --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
