On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Ted Husted wrote: <snip /> > 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.
I agree, however, when we do write Servlets out of Struts, I think everything will need to be rewritten, including this factory and the objects it creates. Since this is more of an internal refactoring than a new feature, I think we don't have to be as concerned about backward-compatibility, especially since writing Servlets out of Struts will break everything anyways. (of course by "writing Servlets out of Struts" I mean removing Servlet dependencies in Struts) > > 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. Ok, sounds good. I'll create a bugzilla entry and post the patches there. Don > > -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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
