> -----Original Message----- > From: James Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sorry but this doesn't make much sense to me. When you say Actions, I > guess you are not referring to WW actions. If you are, I > think you may > need to re-read some documentation. :-)
I think his suggestion makes sense. It's a valid pattern, IMHO. > > > Looking at the codebase (CVS) it looks like this should be > doable by > > "remoting"/wrapping GenericDispatcher as an EJB. > > > > The above ought to be a pretty common scenario - so I would > appreciate > > comments, advices etc. :) > > umm...I guess you _did_ mean WebWork actions... > > There are a bunch of ways to get a transaction to wrapper the entire > HTTP call if you want to go to that extreme. Here are a couple: > > 1. Subclass ActionSupport to create a UserTransaction before > execute(), > and stick it in the request. If you chain to another action, you want > to check if a UserTransaction is currently active. If it is, you do > nothing as you don't want to create nested transactions. After > execute(), you issue your commit. You can rollback if there is a > problem. > > 2. Use a filter to implement similar logic. > 3. Pull the code out of your SLSBs into POJOs and create a new wrapper SLSB which puts together these POJO calls in the correct order / workflow and call that from your Action. 4. Your idea of an Action Chain executor SLSB is also interesting, although I hate to see it go SLSB -> Action -> SLSB Jason ------------------------------------------------------- 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
