For BaseException there is not really a need to catch it in BaseAction, because
I'll have a handler, but for Exception I don't know. Is it a good practice to
declare may own handler?
Ovidiu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kris Schneider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: Simulating multiple inheritance for Action and DispatchAction
Why not just declare handlers for *both* BaseException and Exception in
struts-config?
Quoting Ovidiu EFTIMIE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I agree with you regarding the leading I ;
> I've implemented the setServlet method after sending the mail :)
> Yes you're right about GeneralImpl it must be final .
> I'm overiding execute just for BaseAction of course :), and I do it to
> catch
> exception that are not applicational
> Something like this
> try{
>
> forward = executeAction(....);
> }catch(BaseException bex){
> log.error(bex);
> //to be catched by the handlers declared in struts-config.xml
> throw bex
> }catch(Exception ex){
> ex.printStackTrace();
> log.fatal(e);
> }
> return forward;
>
> Ovidiu
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kris Schneider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 2:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Simulating multiple inheritance for Action and DispatchAction
>
>
> The general approach is probably fine, although naming interfaces with a
> leading
> "I" makes me gag ;-). However, this seems like a bad idea:
>
> public abstract class BaseAction extends Action implements IGeneral {
> private static GeneralImpl general;
> public BaseAction() {
> general = new GeneralImpl(servlet);
> }
> ...
> }
>
> Every time an instance of BaseAction is created, the *static* field
> "general"
> gets reset. Also, where is BaseAction getting the "servlet" arg to pass to
> the
> GeneralImpl constructor? Instead, perhaps:
>
> public abstract class BaseAction extends Action implements IGeneral {
> private final IGeneral general;
> public BaseAction() {
> this.general = new GeneralImpl();
> }
> public void setServlet(ActionServlet servlet) {
> super.setServlet(servlet);
> this.general.setServlet(sevlet);
> }
> ...
> }
>
> Of course, that means adding a setServlet method to IGeneral and
> GeneralImpl.
> I'm also not sure why you'd override execute just to call executeAction.
> You
> certainly wouldn't want to override DispatchAction's execute method, right?
>
> Quoting Ovidiu EFTIMIE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Hi,
> > In my application I need to have my Actions and my DispatchActions.
> > Each one of this actions must have the same base class in which I have
> > common
> > methods to both of them.
> > My solution is to first declare an interface IGeneral in which I'm
> declaring
> > the
> > common methods, then create an implementation class,GeneralImpl.Next thind
> to
> > do
> > would be to create my base classes BaseAction and BaseDispatchAction and
> > this
> > two must implement IGeneral, and in their implementation they should
> delegate
> > to
> > a private static member of type GeneralImpl, which will handle this
> > methods.
> > Example:
> > <code>
> > public interface IGeneral{
> > public Connection getConnection() throws SQLException;
> > ...........
> > public User getUser(HttpServletRequest req);
> > }
> > </code>
> >
> >
> > Then I'm creating the implementation for this methods:
> >
> >
> > <code>
> > public class GeneralImpl implements IGeneral{
> > private ActionServlet servlet;
> > public GeneralImpl(ActionServlet srv){
> > servlet = srv;
> > }
> > public Connection getConnection() throws SQLException{
> > //code here
> > }
> > ...........
> > public User getUser(HttpServletRequest req){
> > //code here
> > }
> > }
> > </code>
> >
> > Now I create the base Actions
> >
> > <code>
> > public abstract class BaseAction extends Action implements IGeneral {
> > private static GeneralImpl general;
> > public BaseAction (){
> > general = new GeneralImpl(servlet);
> > }
> > public ActionForward execute(ActionMapping mapping,ActionForm
> > form,HttpServletRequest request,HttpServletResponse response){
> > return executeAction(ActionMapping mapping,ActionForm
> > form,HttpServletRequest request,HttpServletResponse response)
> > }
> > public abstract executeAction(ActionMapping
> mapping,ActionForm
> > form,HttpServletRequest request,HttpServletResponse response);
> > public Connection getConnection() throws SQLException{
> > return general.getConnection();
> > }
> > public User getUser(HttpServletRequest req){
> > return general.getUser(req);
> > }
> > }
> > </code>
> > The same for the DipatchAction.
> >
> > The question is anoybody has used something like this ? It this a good
> thing
> > to
> > do it ?
> >
> > Tanks in advance and sorry if the text it's too long
> > Ovidiu
>
> --
> Kris Schneider <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> D.O.Tech <http://www.dotech.com/>
--
Kris Schneider <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
D.O.Tech <http://www.dotech.com/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
