+1 on removing legacy dependency on Action interface. Let's make Xwork truly a "generic command framework".
-----Original Message----- Sorry that I didn't post this comment to the mailing list to begin with. It is also on the Wiki, probably not the best place for a meaningful technical discussion. September 15, 2003 pazu, 9 hours, 27 minutes ago. -------------------------------------------------- Just one thing bothers me: if we can define which method xwork will execute in our action class, why do we still need to implement the Action interface? This is probably not a new argument, but in the light of configurable action methods, I see exactly no reason to force the developer to implement a specific interface. As jcarreira pointed out in his TSS tech talk, now that XWork is decoupled from WebWork2, the action could be the business object itself, not a layer over it. Removing the need to implement the Action interface would make this even reasonable and easier to do. jcarreira, 6 hours, 54 minutes ago. ----------------------------------- Umm. yes. This is an old argument. Not one which has been resolved completely yet. Right now we're at a standoff and leaving things be :-) oravecz, 35 minutes ago. ------------------------ So where's did the standoff leave off? I don't want to raise old hackles, but I agree with pazu here. XWork is an implementation of the Command Pattern, but it doesn't enforce any particular command interface, namely the Action interface. We can define alternative entry points into our "actions" using a configuration override, and the formal Action interface is only a convenient default. It seems that the Action interface can be removed as a requirement, and it can probably be argued that it should be. It is really nothing more than a noop method implementation if someone chooses not to use it...so why require it? It also wouldn't break any backward compatiblility to remove the requirement either. If others choose to use it fine, but if I choose to implement my own method names for a command lifecycle that makes more sense for my needs, why force me to implement (or extend) the Action interface? ------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------------------------------- 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
