----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Germuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 3:58 PM
> At 3:41 PM +0000 3/16/05, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >OK, "POJO Actions" is a bad example.
>
> perhaps, but I think having that in the subject line helped stir up
> all this discussion ;-)
</grin>
> I think that o.a.s.chain.commands.ActionCommand (committed last
> night) is an example of this. We could even remove "extends Command"
> if we wanted to free things which aren't chain Commands from
> implementing a method which always casts the Context and passes to
> execute(ActionContext). I almost did it that way.
>
> While we could make something called Actionable and removed from the
> chain sub-area, ActionContext still extends
> o.a.commons.chain.Context, so it begins to be disingenuous to keep
> that distance. Still, decoupling the interface from chain.Command
> may have been the better way to do it.
I don't have any issue with actually providing implementations like this,
although that wasn't my line of thinking. I was thinking more of changing
method signatures in things like ActionContext to use Objects rather than
the concrete class. So for example in ActionContext...replacing
void setAction(Action action);
Action getAction()
void setActionForm(ActionForm form);
ActionForm getActionForm();
with something like...
void setExecutable(Object executable);
Object getExecutable()
void setFormBean(Object form);
Object getFormBean();
...and, for example, in the Commands like AbstractCreateAction, changing....
protected abstract Action getAction(
ActionContext context,
String type,
ActionConfig actionConfig) throws Exception;
to something like....
protected abstract Object getExecutable(
ActionContext context,
String type,
ActionConfig actionConfig) throws Exception;
Niall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
