On 8/25/05, David Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le 05-08-25 à 10:53, Craig McClanahan a écrit : > > > On 8/25/05, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Aug 25, 2005, at 12:28 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote: > >> > >>> However, I've got a separate / semi-related question. Given that > >>> we're changing package names anyway, it would be really cool to > >>> abstract away the servlet API specific calling sequences, so that > >>> standalone Tiles could work equally comfortably in a portlet > >>> environment (without needing any portlet->servlet bridgework). The > >>> only API a typical Tiles user will be using is Controller, so this > >>> shouldn't be a huge deal. What do you think? > > Abstracting out the servlet API will break controllers because we're > passing HttpServletRequest, HttpServletResponse, and ServletContext > to the controller's perform and execute methods. Would we change > those method signatures to take an external context instead?
Ideally, yes ... but note that changing the package name breaks existing uses of Controller as well. It would seem reasonable for the Struts integration layer to keep a copy of the old Controller interface (under the old package name), so people could continue to run -- but when the developer switches to the standalone Tiles version of Controller they would have to migrate to the external context thing. If that's too harsh, we could probably have old-style and new-style versions of Controller in standalone Tiles (so that the framework would no which one to call), with the limitation that old-style controllers would not work in portlets. > david Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
