Dakota Jack wrote:
? I am not interested in
"hooking" anyone, by the way, and so you don't need to "bite". I guess
saying you'll "bite" is like saying I am "fishing" for bullshit. That is not
true.
Isn't it interesting how you always managed to read into comments like
that some derisive connotation? I was simply saying I was interested in
your conjecture, nothing more. Is there some Freudian realization going
on there I wonder?
Anyway, the actual design goes as follows. Please notice that none
of the iterations in Struts CoR are present, for good reason.
Chain of Responsibility
-snip-
Anyone can quote chapter and verse from the GoF book. Can you instead
explain *why* what's in Struts isn't CoR? And, perhaps more
importantly, explain why, even if it isn't an exact match for the
pattern, it matters one bit?
Would you deny that that the flexibility of the chain approach,
regardless of it's "correctness" as far as pattern implementation goes,
doesn't make Struts better? THAT is what I care about, and likely most
other developers would care about. I'm not writing my thesis on why or
why not Struts implements this pattern or that pattern as advertised,
I'm interested in whether it makes my life better, and I for one am
convinced the chain approach does. If you disagree, that's fine, I
would like to hear why, but with specifics, not by quoting a theoretical
abstraction.
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
