On May 15, 2011, at 8:34 AM, Dave Newton wrote: > 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?
Yeah, I could have fallen into an anti-pattern here. Let's say that A knows how to find/generate instances of Foo. B knows how to find/generate instances of Bar. C is an application specific Action that needs an instance of Foo and an instance of Bar. >> 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? B should only be concerned with finding/generating instances of Bar and not worry about "passing up" values from A. Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
