I tried this out tonight, and I thought it was very beneficial to
cleaning up my code. In particular, not having to declare parameters
that I do not need to use.
public void execute(ActionContext context) throws Exception {
}
Steps for development:
1) Add this method signature to Action
2) Would then dispatch to a like signature but of ServletActionContext
3) #2 method would, by default, dispatch to the typical parameter version.
This also allows some interesting dispatching. I can also write a
dispatcher that dispatches according to this method signature. I really
like it the idea.
+1. Anyone against it?
Paul
Ted Husted wrote:
Yes, doing this was on the old 1.4 roadmap.
On 3/7/07, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We talked about this at some length when the ActionContext was first
introduced. We also talked about having the base action implement
ActionCommand and/or some other options.
I think the only reason we didn't do it then was because it was still
new,
and we thought we'd let it settle in for a while. In fact, the idea you
suggest may at one point have been on the roadmap for 1.4.
Joe
On 3/7/07, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just gathering some opinions here...
>
> Would it be preferable to accept an ActionContext in execute() rather
> than the 4 parameters?
>
> public ActionForward execute(ActionContext context) throws Exception;
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
