Well, as you know, my style of development has been to avoid command altogether. They feel flakey to me, so I always use the execute() method.
At the end of the day, the object is an action, therefore it should actually BE an Action. -Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason Carreira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:42 AM Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come! > But it doesn't HAVE to have an execute() method! Well, with the > interface it does, but you don't have to USE it because you can specify > the method to be called... Which is why the Interface is not needed. I > doubt, though, that Mike has checked this in yet, even with his crazy > Aussie sensibilities :-) (plus the fact that sf.net CVS is down evert > time I try to get there). > > Actually, having a method called execute() does not tie you to Xwork... > I think every Ant task has to have that, doesn't it? But it's not an > interface, there. > > I've gone over my reasons for getting rid of the Action Interface... > I'll let Mike chime in when he gets a minute on his crazy whirlwind trip > :-) > > Jason > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pat Lightbody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:32 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come! > > > > > > I don't agree, and I haven't looked at CVS lately, but if the > > Action interface is gone I'd like for it to be put back so > > that we can discuss this more. > > > > I think the mistake in your logic is that an action is a > > "just" a POJO. It's NOT though, it's a POJO with a method > > called execute() that contains a "stuff". That stuff is > > specifically put in the execute() method because that object > > needs to be recognized as something more than "just" an > > object: it HAS an execute() method, and therefore it IS an > > Action. This "is a" identity has been used by OO for decades > > and there is no reason we should get rid of it now. > > > > The argument that making your object implement Action ties it > > to XWork is dumb. So what if it is... even without it, having > > a method called execute() ties it to XWork anyway. Even > > having support for any method (a la command pattern), it is > > still tied to XWork because the action was written to operate > > in certain ways (IoC pattern support, getters and setters, > > and possible callouts to ActionContext). > > > > Please don't underestimate the importance of compile-time > > checking. For some things (validation, type coercion, web > > layers, etc) using runtime features of the language is very > > nice. But I don't want everything to be runtime -- that's why > > I choose WebWork: it provides a nice balance between compile > > time and runtime typing. > > > > I vote a BIG -1 to removing the Action interface, I have yet > > to see a real use case that would demonstrate the importance > > of doing this. > > > > -Pat > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jason Carreira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:16 AM > > Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come! > > > > > > > This is a concern that Mike expressed as well, but I > > challenged him to > > > look at the code and see if it really makes sense. He looked, and > > > grudgingly agreed that it made sense to get rid of it, especially > > > since it took like 10 minutes and Gavin from Hibernate was there, > > > talking about how he'd removed the Peristable interface > > from Hibernate > > > because it was just useless. > > > > > > Giving people a warm fuzzy feeling is not enough > > justification, IMO, > > > to needlessly tie Actions to Xwork, when they can really just be > > > POJO's with no-arg methods returning a String. > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:01 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come! > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree completely. All this 'just define it/figure it out at > > > > runtime' stuff really bothers me. Interfaces might be very 'old > > > > school' now, but > > > > they are useful, just so you know at compile time what > > > > contracts your > > > > components/classes/whatever are adhering to. I still have yet > > > > to look > > > > at xwork (waiting for migration guides+tools and performance > > > > reports), > > > > but the concept of having all information in an xml file and > > > > an active > > > > effort to remove type safety/contracts from code feels > > very wrong. I > > > > understand the allure of 'but you can use ANYTHING as an > > > > action!', but > > > > I do feel that those things that are used as an action should > > > > anticipate somewhat that they are one and will be treated > > as one, in > > > > most cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET > > sites including > > > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > > > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > > > > > http://aspnet.click-> > url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/ > > > 01 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites > > including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are > > available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or > > Visual Studio .NET. > > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_06 > 1203_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
