> From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > While working with actions something bugs me more and more... For each > very simple action you need to have a new class. Although it might be just > a few lines for each, it becomes really ugly when you share code with > other actions or need to call an action from an action. Plus having > thousand of action class for a single webapp. Sure this all possible and > one can say: then use helper classes that hold all the shared code. But > well - possible does not mean confortable. > > IIRC with Turbine e.g. it is way more confortable. They use > "methods as actions": > > class SomeActions { > > public void doMyAction(..) { > ... > > (I'm not quite sure about the arguments and stuff though) > This helps to have all related code at a glance. > Although I'm not yet sure what syntax should be prefered > > 1. <map:action type="SomeActions.doMyAction"> > <!-- directly use the method -->
Do you mean <map:act>? > 2. <map:action type="SomeActions.MyAction"> > <!-- have a fix prefix like "do" --> > > 3. <map:action type="SomeActions" method="doMyAction"> > > 4. <map:action type="SomeActions" method="MyAction"> 5. <map:actions> <map:action src="com.foo.SomeActions" method="doMyAction"/> </map:actions> <map:act type="SomeActions"/> Vadim > Of course this will require the use of the reflection API > for those actions using the new method syntax. (All others > will not be effected and treated as usual) > > I have made some tests: if we use some intelligent > caching for the reflection API there will be only little > to no performance loss compared to the old mechanism. > > What do guys think? > -- > Torsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
