On Sunday, May 15, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > I have a st of chained actions, in order A, B, C.
Jason's correct--IMO action chaining is more trouble than it's worth, almost always. *Three* in a chain?! What's the use case for this? > A has a getter for Foo. B does not have a getter/setter for Foo. C has a > setter for Foo. It seems that A cannot provide C the value of Foo without B > also "participating" and implementing a getter/setter for Foo. Yuck. Why "yuck"? You'd like the actions in the chain to be coupled even *more* tightly and rely on hidden magic to maintain state between them, beyond what's already provided? Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
