It strikes me that your example is a perfect use of Mike's mapping concept:
> Alias = action class + method name (default to execute())
.../CrudAction/create
I tended to go away from doing that some time ago. I am new to WebWork but
have been developing web applications for some time.
At the end of the day someone or something is going to have to build a form
that has action="someurl"
I've had good success with just leaving
action="" and putting my actions into my submit buttons
e.g. <submit name="WWAction_update" value="Update">
<submit name="WWAction_create" value="Create">
The benefit of this is that once you are into a bean you don't have to screw
with urls at all.
You already have to have a match between form-field/bean-property name so
this approach doesn't add much in the way of coupling.
Reacting on the url only means you need a different form for each action.
I'm definitely into having a framework that will pass parameters/select the
bean action to invoke/manage double-clicked submit buttons. I like what I've
been able to do with WW1.x so far. Is WW2 going to turn into another "death
by a million config files" like Struts?
-- Hoping for simplicity
Brett Knights
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:04 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come!
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 06:56 PM, Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
> > Well, there are tonnes of use cases for this (you are talking about
> > commands
> > right?)
> >
> > The most commonly quoted one is a CRUD action. You create different
> > methods
> > like doCreate(), doUpdate() and have the same fields (ie
> name, email
> > etc).
>
> For CRUD actions, I'd probably (with what I know of WW2 thus far), do
> this:
>
> abstract public class CrudAction implements Action {
> final public void setOperation(String operation) { ... }
> final public String execute() throws Exception {
> // switch on operation value
> }
>
> abstract protected String create() throws Exception;
> abstract protected String retrieve() throws Exception;
> abstract protected String update() throws Exception;
> abstract protected String delete() throws Exception;
> }
>
> Why do we need an Action to have multiple entry points? I
> still don't
> get it. Having the framework lock it into a single entry point does
> not prevent patterns of multiple entry point implementations.
>
> I thought we were trying to get away from Struts... let's
> lose the "do"
> prefix :))
>
> Erik
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 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
