Thanks for the reply Mike; comments below.
"Mike Cannon-Brookes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Hey Darryl :)
>
> This is definitely against the OS philosophy, and AFAIK doValidation was
> only called on commands for a brief period.
>
> It was reverse as a design decision because if you're using commands you
> usually want different validation for each them, and doValidation for
> doExecute.
I just do an isCommand("someCommand") inside the doValidation() method to
distinguish between validation for different commands. It works nicely.
>
> If you want it for all commands, you could always create your own
> ActionSupport subclass and override execute() (which isn't that complex
> really).
Hehe, I've already done this. :)
I'll just have to agree to disagree. Nevertheless, thanks for the response.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
>
> On 30/10/02 11:02 PM, "Darryl Pentz" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the
> words:
>
> > I've searched the mailing list and didn't find anything on this, so I
assume
> > I'm *really* late to the party or else nobody else cares about this.
> >
> > Anyway, I upgraded my WW version yesterday to the one *just* before you
> > started using commons logging. Much to my amazement, ActionSupport no
longer
> > calls doValidation() before executing a CommandDriven action command. It
> > used to before (I'm not sure what version I *used* to have but it didn't
> > have ActionContext in it, which might suggest it was *really* old).
> >
> > Regardless, I don't understand this design decision. I really liked how
> > doValidation() was called on ActionSupport, and if you wanted to
override it
> > with specific validation, you did so, otherwise you just don't declare
the
> > doValidation() method and everything continues smoothly. Now I run this
> > version and I see I now have to explicitly call doValidation() which
just is
> > a PITA to me. The automatic validation behaviour would seem useful
whether
> > you're chaining or not.
> >
> > Naturally, I have to abide by what has been done, but I was wondering
what
> > the reasoning for this is that I'm just not seeing right now. It
certainly
> > doesn't adhere to the Principle of Least Astonishment. I thought that
was an
> > OS mantra?
> >
> > later,
> > Darryl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
-------------------------------------------------------
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
