On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:47:04 -0700, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 08:58:56 -0500, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 4:07 PM -0400 10/29/04, Ted Husted wrote: > > >Perhaps it should be based on the Chain Context, which has > > >implementations for various platforms. > > > > I've thought about this, but I've also had reservations about > > separation of concerns. I haven't thought very hard about it, so > > I'll wait until I have before I try to decide how I feel about it. > > When you suggest that, then I wonder why we wouldn't just throw away > > Actions all together and just have people write Commands instead. > > One reason would just be not to change too much on people all at > > once, which is a pretty good reason, I guess. > > Bingo. I've been wondering about this pretty much since Chain came > along. Now that we have Commands, there really doesn't seem to be much > reason for Actions other than backwards compatibility. So rather than > have a standard Action that delegates to a chain, it seems to me that > it would make more sense to base things on Chain, and have a standard > Command that delegates to an Action to preserve backwards > compatibilty. >
+1 ... that (build the 1.3 world on chain) has been my feeling as well. However, for people with existing apps that want to experiment with using chains for their business logic, though, I did check in a couple of standard actions that let you do it the other way, and invoke a chain from an Action -- one that takes the name of the chain from the "parameter" property on the <action> element, and one that takes it from a request parameter. So you can gradually chain-ify your business logic going that direction as well. > -- > Martin Cooper Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
