Still a few words on this subject, I checked the work that Ben Alex has done and attached to http://jira.opensymphony.com/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=WW-234 It's seems like quite good stuff, and big thanks goes to Ben. I just think that maybe it's too much specific to be included in the xwork/webwork2 core. Besides, there are a few things that I disagree with what Ben did. It shouldn't be necessary to create special action and result configuration. Any action configured allready should be able to be called from the Client. If action is not sent over network but only actionName+parameters, it is necessary to set the parameters on the action using ognl which takes cpu time. If user sends the action allready with all parameters set, it's much simpler and faster.
As I see it, there should be basic functionality (like in WW1) included in xwork/ww2 to allow to just simply call an action, and the rest (SSL+progress notification+Automatic IO retries) should go to webwork-extensions or something like that. Please comment, because most probably I'm just too unexperienced to understand all details envolved. Anyway, thanks Fernando On Wednesday 17 December 2003 11:37, Fernando Martins wrote: > I've been migrating WW1 code that handles Client Dispatching (from Applet > or Swing) using servlets. > Like Hani said, it wasn't too hard, and it's working quite nicely. > I wrote a ClientActionProxy which is sent over the network with the action > in it (in WW1 only the action was sent), and on the server side it executes > the action inside. > It returns to the client an ActionResult (with Action and resultCode, just > like WW1). > The only thing now missing is that it doesn't care for any configuration, > specially interceptors, because this is done in DefaultActionInvocation. > It also doesn't care for components. > So I guess to anchieve optimal behaviour, it should on the server side, > look up the configuration, and run all the interceptors, similar to what > DefaultActionInvocation does. > Probably there should be a customized version of DefaultActionInvocation > that doesn't just create a newly fresh action, but uses the action sent > over the network by the client. And it also doesn't have sense to run some > of the Interceptors like for example ParametersInterceptor, because dynamic > parameters should allready be set in the action that the client built. Is > this a good direction, or am I missing something? > > Thanks > Fernando > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. > Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's > Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. > Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
