I don't think it's a good idea to repurpose the <forward> attribute. It's
not identical to <result> in s2 with a type. I would truly recommend a
different kind of tag here.
Paul
On Dec 13, 2007 12:43 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Laurie Harper wrote:
> > Or stick with mapping.findForward(something) but provide a mechanism for
> > mapping that result type to the appropriate (JSON/XML/etc) rederer in
> > struts-config.xml. That would eliminate any concern over clashes with
> > existing action return strings (small though the risk is), and would be
> > consistent with existing declarative semantics.
> >
> > With that, it could be easy to make the 'result providers' such as JSON
> > serialization, XML serialization and so forth plugable/configurable
> > and/or parameterizable.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > <action name="/orders" ...>
> > <forward type="json" name="json-brief"/>
> > <forward type="json" name="json-brief">
> > <!-- JSON serializer parameters go here -->
> > </forward>
> > ...
>
> I was thinking along those lines too, especially in terms of
> parameterization... but, I think Antonio still has a valid point in
> terms of findForward() meaning one thing, and doing it this way in a
> sense "overloads" that meaning, which arguably isn't as nice.
>
> I re-implemented it now by adding a renderResult() method to
> ActionForward, and that works nicely. That code I think is fairly good
> now, could create a patch for it. But...
>
> There's two concerns left... one is parameterization. First, let me
> show you where I am right now:
>
> return mapping.renderResult("json", response, inForm);
>
> I think that addresses Antonio's concern. Now, for paramerization, I'm
> thinking simply using the <set-property> on the Action might be fine...
> then, this call would become:
>
> return mapping.renderResult("json", response, inForm, this);
>
> Each renderer could look for specific attribute of the Action to
> configure it.
>
> Also, I just saw Martin's note, and the point about not always using the
> ActionForm is a good one, so one of the things the renderers could look
> for is an attribute, maybe call it simply "beanToRender". That way, if
> the Action wants to return another object as JSON, they just point that
> attribute at the object and it's good to go. If that attribute is null,
> or not present, the ActionForm is used.
>
> The second concern... well, the second concern I'll skip for now because
> I want to go reply to Martin's reply specifically because it might
> change all this anyway :)
>
> > L.
>
> Frank
>
> --
> Frank W. Zammetti
> Founder and Chief Software Architect
> Omnytex Technologies
> http://www.omnytex.com
> AIM/Yahoo: fzammetti
> MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
> (2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
> and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
> (2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
> Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
> Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
