On 5/4/06, Eric Molitor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I definitely agree that they should be isolated, but glancing through the api I saw RequestAware but not ResponseAware. (I`m reading the copy Don posted and not the version under source control.)
ValidationAware, ErrrorAware, RequestAware, ResponseAware, SomeOtherStuffAware... Are you kidding? I might not understand something (heck, I haven't started with WW yet), but if all these interfaces are only meant to implement a callback method in a custom class for the framework to call, then... well, I do not like this. For the lifecycle, I want a clear definition of lifecycle call sequence and an option to call lifecycle methods explicitly. All of them. Like in SAF1, WW binds URL to a mapping to an action, so action is the endpoint which is guaranteed to be called. Fine. Then just pass control to that action and give me an option to call all (or some) lifecycle methods explicitly from the action. I will not need interceptors in this case, by the way. And I will not need to implement a bunch of intefaces. For the regular typecasting I agree, some interfaces are needed, to make certain methods available, but there should be a very limited number of these interfaces, and at best a particular class will need to implement only one interface. Um, does it make sense? Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
