I think an action's mapping is a decision by the action itself. Like I said earlier, when an application development finishes, that decision will become static. At that point, when an Action's mapping changes, its code will have to change too (unless the new mapping is kind of a synonym to the old mapping, which doesn't bear any shift in the semantics). As such, there is almost no point in keeping the decision and the code separate (i.e. making the decision's configuration a loose end of the code). Or at least, configuration shouldn't be the only way to add or modify an Action.
Even though each Action's configuration may be small, the configurations for all the Actions need to be kept track of and maintained (for integrity). That may be a significant but unnecessary side work. To view the mappings, there can be a tool to traverse the structure by api calls and display it. That can be done after the fact and doesn't have to be before it. In addition to that, when the decision (or configuration if any) goes where the code lives, modularity increases. IMHO, - Robert. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:55 AM Subject: RE: Disadvantages of Struts? I have to disagree with you on the first point. I find that there is just a small amount of necessary configuration required to build an Action class (most of my Action configurations have about a half dozen lines, even less if there is no associated ActionForm). I'm not really sure what you mean by "paddle back and forth between the code and the configuration", could you explain? Thanks. Robert H. Tran wrote: > I am not sure that is true. Struts seems to lack of an API. IMO, there are > more required configurations than necessary. Take Action for example, to > write an Action, one has to paddle back and forth between the code and the > configuration. It is like an executable having to configure each of its > dlls. The visibility of the mappings is nice to have but the mappings can > be generated after the fact as in a debugging view. When the application is > finished, configurations become static. But since configurations are > required, they will be like loose ends of the application. Another issue: > how can one componentize his code and deploy it in a self-contained plug-in, > as with Eclipse? Please forgive my novice. > > - Robert. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rick Hightower" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Struts Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 6:24 PM > Subject: RE: Disadvantages of Struts? > > > >>Don't be silly. Struts is perfect. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Robert H. Tran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:10 PM >>To: Struts Developers List >>Subject: Disadvantages of Struts? >> >>I just wonder if Struts comes with any significant drawback. I mean not in >>terms of when to use Struts and when not to use it necessarily, but more > > in > >>the line of anyone's wishes that it had been better. Any advice is very >>appreciated. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
