On 11/13/05, Wolfgang Gehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -1, the most important thing that Struts 1.3 allows us to get rid of is > the "extends Action", which becomes "implements Command". So the focus > should be on this.
The "Action" in "Struts Action Framework" isn't the Action class. It's action as in action-oriented, as distinct from component-oriented. Regardless of whether you choose to implement Actions or Commands, it's still an action-oriented framework. -- Martin Cooper The Command/Chain of Command= Chain of Responsibility=CoR leads me to > the name Struts COR(e). > > Spell it with an "e" at the end or without, but the use of CoR is really > the leap the framework has done to make it the technology choice of the > future. > > I see actions as a thing of the past. We use commands now. So does the > Struts Request processor. Struts has become a more generic Request > Processor. With the discussion on "action oriented" versus "component > oriented", I think the request processor has been rebuilt to allow both. > Which is the great news about 1.3. We've been doing actions for so long, > to that we are just learning to discover that greatness. Too bad if, via > naming, we were to somewhat limit the perspective to "action handling". > Even Shale uses a chain, and my wild guess is that both Shale and TI > will use the code in the Core subproject eventually; it's just such a > great piece of work. > > Action Framework sells it below value, IMHO. Today, in the age of > flexibility, it kind of puts itself in a corner for a particular kind of > usage. > > Maybe I missed some threads, but I think most people were OK to go with > CORE Library. So let me be a dissident on "Action". > > I love 1.3 and I just see that I would have a more difficult time > explaining why I "still" use Struts instead of Spring. That is if can't > flaunt > the fact that 1.3 is NEW, more open (flexible wiring is what sells > Spring), abd a *CORE* piece of solid code infrastructure. That's why I > believe in Struts CORe. > > Wolfgang Gehner > > > > > > > > L. > > > > Ted Husted wrote: > > > >> The website seems to be in pretty good shape now. I just ran build-all > >> on the applications subproject, and that's looking pretty good too. I > >> think that just leaves > >> > >> * Reviewing the applications > >> * Adding the Actions package to PlugIns and renaming it Extra > >> > >> If this all goes well, then I'm thinking we can roll 1.3.0 sometime > >> next week. > >> > >> Now about the whole "what to call it" thing :) > >> > >> I was about to suggest "Struts Smurf", but, hey, why not go for the > >> next best thing? > >> > >> We've called everything else "Action", why not call the framework > >> that too? :) > >> > >> OK, let's try it on for size: > >> > >> Today, the Apache Struts project is comprised of two distinct > >> frameworks and several subprojects. The two frameworks are *Struts > >> Action* and *Struts Shale*. Struts Action is the original action/page > >> framework. Struts Shale is an event/component framework based on > >> JavaServer Faces. > >> ... > >> > >> Struts Action is a flexible control layer based on standard > >> technologies like Java Servlets, JavaBeans, ResourceBundles, and XML, > >> as well as various Jakarta Commons packages, like BeanUtils and Chain > >> of Responsibility. Action helps you create an extensible development > >> environment for your application, based on published standards and > >> proven design patterns. > >> .... > >> > >> Struts Action in a Nutshell > >> > >> The framework's controller class, also called "Action", acts as a > >> bridge between the application's Model and the web View. When a > >> request is received, the Request Processor invokes an Action class. > >> The Action class consults with the Model (or, preferably, a Facade > >> representing your Model) to examine or update the application's state. > >> The framework provides an ActionForm class to help transfer data > >> between Model and View. > >> .... > >> > >> We could then call the bundle the "Struts Action Library". > >> > >> Thoughts on calling the core of the original framework "Action"? Last > >> call! > >> > >> -Ted. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
