Re: [Chain] ContextToRequestCommand
Quoting Jeff Caddel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If your application uses WebContext (or one of it's subclasses) as the
Context
object being passed down the chain, you already have access to the request
attributes via the getRequestScope() method. There's also other
Map-returning
methods on WebContext for lots of other useful stuff (headers, cookies,
session
attributes, context attributes, context init parameters, ...).
A. Brain cells starting to click now. One huge benefit of exposing
them as map's being that you can make use of generic bean manipulating
code to mess with them, right? Instead of making API specific calls
like getAttribute/setAttribute.
That is certainly one benefit. A second benefit is the concept of request
attributes works across both servlet and portlet environments, without tying
your application code to one or the other underying API for accessing the
request object (and the same principle applies on session and application
scope).
On the attribute collections in particular, the Map implementation is
two-way
... for example, usage like this:
public boolean execute(Context context) throws Exception {
...
WebContext wcontext = (WebContext) context;
// Following is equivalent to request.getAttribute(foo)
String fooValue = wcontext.getRequestScope().get(foo);
// Following is equivalent to request.setAttribute(foo, bar)
wcontext.getRequestScope().put(foo, bar);
...
}
Which is better since nothing in this implementation makes a servlet
specific API call. If I needed the value bar to be present under the
attribute foo in a portlet environment (for example), this command
could be re-used.
Yep.
I should have noted that you can also leverage the attribute-property
transparency built in to the base Context implementation, and say:
Map requestScope = (Map) context.get(requestScope);
without needing the explicit cast to WebContext.
makes a request attribute named foo with value bar visible to a JSP page
(or
whatever) that will ultimately create the response.
If I'm getting this right, I could also place bar into the request
under the attribute foo (in an API independent manner, nonetheless) by
simply configuring a CopyCommand:
command className=org.apache.commons.chain.generic.CopyCommand
toKey=requestScope.foo from=foo/
Right now this wouldn't work -- it would put the object into the Context itself
under key requestScope.foo -- but one could certainly create a Copy command
that interpreted the keys as expressions.
(Assuming that some other previous bit of logic had placed bar into
the context under the key foo.)
Holy smokes...how easy is that!!
:-)
Does this satisfy the sorts of requirements you were after?
Fit's the bill quite nicely, Craig. Thanks.
Craig
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Chain] ContextToRequestCommand
If your application uses WebContext (or one of it's subclasses) as the Context
object being passed down the chain, you already have access to the request
attributes via the getRequestScope() method. There's also other Map-returning
methods on WebContext for lots of other useful stuff (headers, cookies, session
attributes, context attributes, context init parameters, ...).
A. Brain cells starting to click now. One huge benefit of exposing
them as map's being that you can make use of generic bean manipulating
code to mess with them, right? Instead of making API specific calls
like getAttribute/setAttribute.
On the attribute collections in particular, the Map implementation is two-way
... for example, usage like this:
public boolean execute(Context context) throws Exception {
...
WebContext wcontext = (WebContext) context;
// Following is equivalent to request.getAttribute(foo)
String fooValue = wcontext.getRequestScope().get(foo);
// Following is equivalent to request.setAttribute(foo, bar)
wcontext.getRequestScope().put(foo, bar);
...
}
Which is better since nothing in this implementation makes a servlet
specific API call. If I needed the value bar to be present under the
attribute foo in a portlet environment (for example), this command
could be re-used.
makes a request attribute named foo with value bar visible to a JSP page (or
whatever) that will ultimately create the response.
If I'm getting this right, I could also place bar into the request
under the attribute foo (in an API independent manner, nonetheless) by
simply configuring a CopyCommand:
command className=org.apache.commons.chain.generic.CopyCommand
toKey=requestScope.foo from=foo/
(Assuming that some other previous bit of logic had placed bar into
the context under the key foo.)
Holy smokes...how easy is that!!
Does this satisfy the sorts of requirements you were after?
Fit's the bill quite nicely, Craig. Thanks.
Craig
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Chain] ContextToRequestCommand
Quoting Jeff Caddel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Any feedback on this Command implementation?
The idea is that as a chain of commands is executing objects get
aggregated into a map. The context holds a reference to the map. At
the tail end of the execution chain, this command places the objects
from the map into the request as request attributes so that front end
components (Tiles, JSP's etc) can display them.
If your application uses WebContext (or one of it's subclasses) as the Context
object being passed down the chain, you already have access to the request
attributes via the getRequestScope() method. There's also other Map-returning
methods on WebContext for lots of other useful stuff (headers, cookies, session
attributes, context attributes, context init parameters, ...).
On the attribute collections in particular, the Map implementation is two-way
... for example, usage like this:
public boolean execute(Context context) throws Exception {
...
WebContext wcontext = (WebContext) context;
// Following is equivalent to request.getAttribute(foo)
String fooValue = wcontext.getRequestScope().get(foo);
// Following is equivalent to request.setAttribute(foo, bar)
wcontext.getRequestScope().put(foo, bar);
...
}
makes a request attribute named foo with value bar visible to a JSP page (or
whatever) that will ultimately create the response.
Does this satisfy the sorts of requirements you were after?
Craig
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Chain] ContextToRequestCommand
I'm not a commiter, but the idea sounds reasonable to me. I do something
very similiar in Struts when using Jelly scripts, where I have a struts
action that takes all of the http 'stuff' and puts it into the jelly
context, executes a script and then takes the data from the context and
puts it back into the appropriate http scope.
If this is accepted, A couple more would be nice to have for session and
application scope as well.
Robert
Jeff Caddel wrote:
Any feedback on this Command implementation?
The idea is that as a chain of commands is executing objects get
aggregated into a map. The context holds a reference to the map. At
the tail end of the execution chain, this command places the objects
from the map into the request as request attributes so that front end
components (Tiles, JSP's etc) can display them.
Is this:
A) A terrible idea violating abstractions of the Chain of Responsibility
pattern? B) A good idea demonstrating good use of the pattern?
C) Something else?
public class ContextToRequestCommand implements Command {
String key = contextToRequest;
public boolean execute(Context context) throws Exception {
HttpServletRequest request =
(HttpServletRequest)context.get(request);
Map map = (Map)context.get(key);
if (map == null) {
return false;
}
Iterator pairs = map.entrySet().iterator();
while (pairs.hasNext()) {
Map.Entry pair = (Map.Entry)pairs.next();
request.setAttribute((String)pair.getKey(), pair.getValue());
}
return false;
}
}
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Chain] ContextToRequestCommand
Any feedback on this Command implementation?
The idea is that as a chain of commands is executing objects get
aggregated into a map. The context holds a reference to the map. At
the tail end of the execution chain, this command places the objects
from the map into the request as request attributes so that front end
components (Tiles, JSP's etc) can display them.
Is this:
A) A terrible idea violating abstractions of the Chain of Responsibility
pattern?
B) A good idea demonstrating good use of the pattern?
C) Something else?
public class ContextToRequestCommand implements Command {
String key = contextToRequest;
public boolean execute(Context context) throws Exception {
HttpServletRequest request =
(HttpServletRequest)context.get(request);
Map map = (Map)context.get(key);
if (map == null) {
return false;
}
Iterator pairs = map.entrySet().iterator();
while (pairs.hasNext()) {
Map.Entry pair = (Map.Entry)pairs.next();
request.setAttribute((String)pair.getKey(), pair.getValue());
}
return false;
}
}
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
