Thanks I'm going to look a bit harder into the workflow. Is it in the nightly build? and is it stable enough to start some experimental development on? Or do you think it will have some drastic changes? Any good examples of it's usage?
Sorry for all of the questions. But, I find this very appealing :-) Brandon Goodin Phase Web and Multimedia P (406) 862-2245 F (406) 862-0354 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phase.ws -----Original Message----- From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:21 PM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility No, just working with it as a user. bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:59 PM Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility > Bob, > > Are you involved in the development of the workflow proposal? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:50 AM > To: Struts Users Mailing List > Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility > > > I have looked at the Workflow stuff and will probably use it. It will work > great for the problem mentioned here. > > However, I will be making some changes/extensions to it to make it easier to > use. It is a little too low level "out-of-the-box." Extending it has been > easy since all of the basics are there. The base design looks great - a > good start - but needs to be flushed out. > > bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:21 PM > Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility > > > > Peter do you know anything about the workflow proposal and if it addresses > > this issue. I don't want to carry on about this if something standard is > in > > the works. Also, let's move this discussion over the the developer group. > I > > was a bad boy and started a discussion on the dev and the user. Bad > posting > > edicate :-). > > > > Brandon Goodin > > Phase Web and Multimedia > > P (406) 862-2245 > > F (406) 862-0354 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.phase.ws > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter Pilgrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:06 AM > > To: Struts Users Mailing List > > Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility > > > > > > > > > > I got the XML completely wrong, haven't I > > > > <struts-config > > xmlns:struts="http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/struts-config.dtd"; > > xmlns xmls:acme="http://www.acme.com/acton-processor"; > > > > > ... > > > > <struts:extensions> > > <!-- within the struts extension body tag we can handle > additions --> > > <acme:processor> > > <acme:process-group name="check-login-and-authorize"> > > <acme:process-action name="com.mydomain.LoginCheck"> > > <acme:process-action name="com.mydomain.UserAuthorize"> > > <acme:/process-group> > > <acme:/processor> > > <struts:extensions> > > > > ... > > > > > > </struts-config> > > > > Extension are recognised inside a <struts:extension> tag. > > > > In this way nobody is forced to use the <acme:processor> tags. > > Developer add other extension or replace the existing one with > > better extensions, or delete a deprecated extension. > > > > All extension are then optionally and downloadable and plug-in able. > > > > Unless my understanding my of XML and namespaces is completely wrong > > this should in theory work in principle? > > > > -- > > Peter Pilgrim ++44 (0)207-545-9923 > > > > ............................................ Swamped under electronic > mails > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- Message > > History ---------------------------------------- > > > > > > From: Peter Pilgrim/DMGIT/DMG UK/DeuBa@DMG UK on 26/04/2002 14:27 CET > > > > Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > cc: > > Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility > > > > > > > > > > > > So why do not subclass Action and make another abstract > > AcmeSecureAction of your self that does the login check and > > the authorise. > > > > There is real danger that your other action may accidentally > > miss the security check, if say a newbie developer forgets > > add the process-group tags. > > > > If you want to add this to the struts-config XML then the > > Struts Digester code needs changing. I would suggest looking at > > ways that the digester code could be expanded with namespaces > > > > <xmlns xmls:acme="http://www.acme.com/aciton-processor"; > > > > <acme:processor> > > <acme:process-group name="check-login-and-authorize"> > > <acme:process-action name="com.mydomain.LoginCheck"> > > <acme:process-action name="com.mydomain.UserAuthorize"> > > <acme:/process-group> > > <acme:/processor> > > > > Some sort of factory interface I guess. and additionally > > ActionServlet init parameters > > > > digesterExtension=com.acme.struts.digester.ActionProcessor > > > > -- > > Peter Pilgrim ++44 (0)207-545-9923 > > > > ............................................ Swamped under electronic > mails > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- Message > > History ---------------------------------------- > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 26/04/2002 07:46 AST > > > > Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > cc: > > Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility > > > > > > > > > > > > So for example, if I wanted to ensure a user was logged in, then check > > their authorizatoin for a particular URI, could I do something like: > > > > <processor> > > <process-group name="check-login-and-authorize"> > > <process-action name="com.mydomain.LoginCheck"> > > <process-action name="com.mydomain.UserAuthorize"> > > </process-group> > > </processor> > > > > Then I could reuse this logic without having to embed it in each action > > class. > > > > Is this what you're proposing? Do I understand correctly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/25/2002 05:36:57 PM > > > > Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "Struts User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > cc: > > Subject: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility > > > > > > Okay here is the idea I proposed earlier ("Struts (MVC) Shortcomings?") in > > more solid thought. > > > > My hope in this is to provide an non-hard-coding mechanism to take > > advantage > > of reusable logic without having to forward around to a bunch of Action > > classes (which doesn't work anyways). > > > > Here is my proposal: > > > > An action mapping could have an associated Process Config specified in the > > <set-property> of the action class. Something like: > > <set-property name="processor" value="processa" /> > > > > An associated config file called processor.xml could be set up to define > > process patterns that have names associated with the value attribute of > the > > set-property. Something like: > > <processor> > > <process-group name="processa"> > > <process-action name="com.mydomain.ProcessThisA"> > > <process-action name="com.mydomain.ProcessThisB"> > > </process-group> > > <process-groupname="processb"> > > <process-action name="com.mydomain.ProcessThisB"> > > <process-action name="com.mydomain.ProcessThisC"> > > </process-group> > > <process-groupname="processd"> > > <process-action name="com.mydomain.ProcessThisX"> > > <process-action name="com.mydomain.ProcessThisC"> > > <process-action name="com.mydomain.ProcessThisN"> > > </process-group> > > </processor> > > > > This config info could be placed into the Application Scope at the app > > startup using the plugin mechanism of Struts 1.1. > > > > When an Action is called it would look to see what "process group" it > needs > > to call and using reflection to perform the specified chain of processing > > in > > the order specified in the process-groupname config. > > > > A process class would conform to an interface and would have access to > > everything that the Action has access to. This way any errors or scoped > > beans/Attributes that need to be set can be set from within the process > > class. Also, the process class could access other logic beans for sql and > > such. > > > > Any unique coding that needs to happen can still be contained in an Action > > class. But for code that is reusable. This would be very nice. > > > > Brandon Goodin > > Phase Web and Multimedia > > P (406) 862-2245 > > F (406) 862-0354 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.phase.ws > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: < > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: < > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the > use > > of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > > information that is privileged, proprietary , confidential and exempt from > > disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that > > any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is > > strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, > > please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you > > are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) > > please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any > > unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this > > e-mail is strictly forbidden. > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you > > are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) > > please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any > > unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this > > e-mail is strictly forbidden. > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
