Well, in our app we used method="bla" attribute of <action/> in some cases. Imho doDefault and doExecute are enough. I don't feel comfortable with a doBla method though. I've written another code that wishfully depended on a well-defined execute() method and it's already broken because I can't be sure which method is really called, is it doAdd or is it execute() for this, which one is the one that I should respond to.
So although in theory this flexibility is good but in reality I think a very strict and well-formed interface is better. Oh btw I think interceptors should be aware of the method they call. So if we have a CreatePageAction and we defined a createpage-start.action (method="doDefault") and a createpage.action (method="execute") then ValidationInterceptor for example should not be called for the first one otherwise although you intended to use the first action to fill a form with the default values (and some of them are empty, invalid according to validation ules), then the form shows up with the default values and the red error markers around them! I think we need to make this contract stricter and support the common doDefault for filling the form and then execute() to do the real job directly and supported in the interceptors. Ara. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Anders Engström > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come! > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 11:32:25AM -0700, Pat Lightbody wrote: > > 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. > > > [snip] > > > > 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. > > > > As an anonymous ww mailing list lurker I'd like to raise my voice on > this one too. I really believe that removing the Action interface is a > bad thing. Just because it's possible to remove the interface doesn't > mean that it's the best thing to do. It would confuse newcomers to > webwork as there is no longer a recognizable "component type" > representing the "command" in the command pattern. > > +1 for keeping the interface. > > //Anders > > -- > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . Anders Engström [EMAIL PROTECTED] > . http://www.gnejs.net PGP-Key: ED010E7F > . [Your mind is like an umbrella. It doesn't work unless you open it.] ------------------------------------------------------- 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
