Did you really mean to say don't base the ACTION on a concrete subclass? If so, I'm a bit confused (which is my usual state of being, so all is well)...
The way I am looking at it, the only thing I'm extending is the ActionConfig, which is a class. The Action Martin wrote of course extends Action. Did I completely miss your meaning? (Ok, let me amend that to cover the most likely scenarioa: IN WHAT *DID* I completely miss your meaning? :) ) -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com On Tue, September 21, 2004 3:46 pm, Joe Germuska said: >>(1) Extend ActionMapping and have accessors and mutators for all the >>"extra" attributes needed (whatever they may actually be, still open for >>debate) > > Admitting that I haven't been following this thread closely... > > please, base the Action on an interface, not a concrete subclass of > ActionMapping (ActionConfig). The last thing we need is another > single-inheritance trap. > > Thanks > Joe > > BTW, I think it would be cool to have some core stuff which > demonstrates the idea of using custom ActionMappings, as it's a > powerful piece of functionality that I think is generally not > understood by beginning Struts developers. > > -- > Joe Germuska > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blog.germuska.com > "In fact, when I die, if I don't hear 'A Love Supreme,' I'll turn > back; I'll know I'm in the wrong place." > - Carlos Santana > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
