See below...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brock Bulger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
>
>
> Here are my observations on the Action issue:
>
> From a framework standpoint it doesn't really matter if there
> is an explicit
> execute() method to call on the underlying object. The
> default behavior is to call this method if no method is
> specified. So I don't think we lose anything by changing the
> return type on those methods to Object.
>
Umm... We're not talking about changing the return type... We're talking
about removing the Action Interface.
> From a terminology standpoint and for consistency, I think
> the Action interface should retain the execute() method.
> Developers associate "action" objects as implementing a
> specific interface and I think the framework should leverage
> this association. And that to me implies that the
> ActionSupport class should continue to implement the Action
> interface and the associated execute() method.
>
> Now bear with me.
>
> Create a new class (or rename the BaseActionSupport) called
> CommandSupport (for command driven actions mind you) that
> implements everything in the current BaseActionSupport minus
> the Action interface. This class will be subclassed by anyone
> wanting to declare their own execution methods while
> providing all the validation/locale support existing in ActionSupport.
>
> Then the only issue is the result types (success, error, etc)
> which could be refactored into a separate interface that both
> ActionSupport and CommandSupport implement. In the end you
> would probably have something like:
>
> public interface ResultTypes {
> // or another name that floats your boat
> public static final String SUCCESS = "success";
> // etc
> }
>
> public interface Action {
> public String execute() throws Exception;
> }
>
> public class CommandSupport implements ResultTypes,
> ValidationAware, LocaleAware, Serializable { }
>
> public class ActionSupport extends CommandSupport implements
> Action { }
>
> This should give most people the flexibility to do what they
> want. Thoughts?
>
> - Brock
>
I don't see why we'd want to do this... If we don't remove the execute()
method, there's no reason to create a separate interface without it.
Jason
-------------------------------------------------------
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
