On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 10:59:58AM +0200, Rickard ?berg wrote: > Gavin King wrote: > >I'm not sure if it fits your philosophy, but I would have liked > >ActionSupport to provide > > > >Map getSession() > >Map getApplication() > > As opposed to ActionContext.getSession()? Do this in your own > ActionSupport base class if you want. Adding it in WW's ActionSupport > seems like a bit too much overkill and just hides things too much (IMHO). > > >to provide easy access to the context objects. Actually, before I realised > >that *Aware were deprecated, I thought that it would have been best if > >ActionSupport already implemented *Aware and then returned the objects > >passed to *Aware() from the getters above. > > That would have been bad from a performance point of view. There's also > the problem that we want the context to be easily extensible, which > would also wreck this idea.
What if the *Aware interfaces still go away, but the setters in the action stayed? Then you could just do a bean-copy from the ActionContext to the Action as part of the factory chain. This lets you keep inversion of control without having to add a new factory proxy every time you add something new to ActionContext. Performance probably isn't affected too much--you only copy over the necessary bean properties, and you don't have to do the multiple ThreadLocal lookups that using the ActionContext implies. -Chris ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
