I don't think it's a question of making things easier for the user or not
vs. our effort.
Are you saying you want arbitrary levels for messages (a la JSF)?
Bob
On 5/4/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don Brown wrote:
> re-education of developers. I want Struts Action Framework 2 to be seen
> as easy and powerful, not just from a feature standpoint, but also
> migration, education, and "conceptual space" one.
I was talking to Eric on the ww dev chat, and he brought up a good point
that
resonated with me: we should be leveraging more known, common constructs
in
developing this API.
For example, the Messages object, rather than leverage the familiar Log
interface we all use every day. Messages are collected, much like logging
messages and their levels are similar. Therefore, we'd have:
msgs.info("some.key");
msgs.warn("some.warn.key");
msgs.error("some.error.key");
We'd still keep the four different versions of the add function to handle
field
errors and parameters. Furthermore, Messages could implement Collection
and
Map, allowing it to be treated easily by existing tags and code built to
handle
these common constructs.
Yes, this adds more methods but the value to the developer, I think, is
worth
it. I'd rather error on the side of making our job harder than require
more
work and learning on the part of the end developer. Martin Fowler calls
it a
Humane Interface pattern [1], and while I don't completely agree with that
pattern (78 methods for a List?!), I do think we should be designing from
the
standpoint of the end developer, not from the framework developer. Let's
make
Struts Action 2 powerful, easy, and even _intuitive_.
Don
[1] http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/HumaneInterface.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
