DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33573>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33573 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-16 19:49 ------- Joe, Thanks for the response. Looking at DispatchCommand, it certainly is a much more comprehensive solution to the problem, and more flexible. I went ahead and attached a refactoring of DispatchAction based on DispatchCommand. It adds getArguments() and getSignature() methods, as well as making slight changes to getMethod() and dispatchMethod() to use the two new methods. Of course, the changes don't affect the API and it shouldn't break anything. Is this along the lines of what you were talking about? Here's a summary of the changes: In dispatchMethod(): --Object args[] = {mapping, form, request, response}; ++Object args[] = getArguments(mapping, form, request, response); In getMethod(): --method = clazz.getMethod(name, types); ++method = clazz.getMethod(name, getSignature()); The two new methods: protected Class[] getSignature() { return types; } protected Object[] getArguments(ActionMapping mapping, ActionForm form, HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) { return new Object[] {mapping, form, request, response}; } If this is something you think might be worth implementing, I can go ahead and create a patch if you'd like. If you do think a refactoring is in order, what code base do you think we might see it in, 1.2.6 or 1.3? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
