<SNIP> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:07:14 +0200, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would first say that you probably want to think about > > refactoring your design. > > I think this is always true :-) </SNIP>
We have a rule about when refactoring is advisable. Usually it is not. However, in this case, I would agree that it is. <SNIP> > (like ejb remote) for later invocation of business methods > in execute. I mean, I have to do it somewhere and it is tied to an Action, > so the constructor seemed to be the appropriate location for it. However, > our current CORBA implementation (JacORB) actually associates a separate > connection with every remote instance (which is very ugly btw), so we > started to move all (but not all yet :-)) remote references to the base > action as private static variables with protected accesser to it. > </SNIP> This is really where things are haywire, I think. <SNIP> > Hmm, I think this is something better solved by inheritance? > I mean instantiating an action is like instantiating a servlet, since an > action is a method extracted from the servlet (you know the dark ages, > before struts), and instantiating a servlet was never a good idea, because > they are managed by the container... and so should actions, shouldn't they? </SNIP> "[I]nstantiating an action" is not "like instantiating a servlet". I do not agree with Frank that instantiating Actions is a good idea, however, on other grounds. We have discussed that at length and need not repeat it here. I also do not agree that using Actions for setup alone is a good idea. I think that muddies the web-MVC terribly. Jack -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
