RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-26 Thread Phase Web and Multimedia 

Thanks!

-Original Message-
From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 1:05 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


I believe it is in the nightly build.  It is also included in the 1.1
material.  There is an example/test with the software, but it is pretty
basic.  I found it to be stable, but a bit rudimentary.  It is something to
build on though.

bob

- Original Message -
From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


> Thanks I'm going to look a bit harder into the workflow. Is it in the
> nightly build? and is it stable enough to start some experimental
> development on? Or do you think it will have some drastic changes? Any
good
> examples of it's usage?
>
> Sorry for all of the questions. But, I find this very appealing :-)
>
> Brandon Goodin
> Phase Web and Multimedia
> P (406) 862-2245
> F (406) 862-0354
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.phase.ws
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:21 PM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
> No, just working with it as a user.
>
> bob
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:59 PM
> Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
> > Bob,
> >
> > Are you involved in the development of the workflow proposal?
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:50 AM
> > To: Struts Users Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
> >
> >
> > I have looked at the Workflow stuff and will probably use it.  It will
> work
> > great for the problem mentioned here.
> >
> > However, I will be making some changes/extensions to it to make it
easier
> to
> > use.  It is a little too low level "out-of-the-box."  Extending it has
> been
> > easy since all of the basics are there.  The base design looks great - a
> > good start - but needs to be flushed out.
> >
> > bob
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:21 PM
> > Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
> >
> >
> > > Peter do you know anything about the workflow proposal and if it
> addresses
> > > this issue. I don't want to carry on about this if something standard
is
> > in
> > > the works. Also, let's move this discussion over the the developer
> group.
> > I
> > > was a bad boy and started a discussion on the dev and the user. Bad
> > posting
> > > edicate :-).
> > >
> > > Brandon Goodin
> > > Phase Web and Multimedia
> > > P (406) 862-2245
> > > F (406) 862-0354
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.phase.ws
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Peter Pilgrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:06 AM
> > > To: Struts Users Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I got the XML completely wrong, haven't I
> > >
> > >  > > xmlns:struts="http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/struts-config.dtd";
> > >xmlns  xmls:acme="http://www.acme.com/acton-processor"; >
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > 
> > >   
> > >   
> > > 
> > >   
> > >name="com.mydomain.UserAuthorize">
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > Extension are recognised inside a  tag.
> > >
> > > In this way nobody is forced to use the  tags.
> > > Developer add other extension or replace the existing one with
> > > bet

Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-26 Thread Robert Williams 

I believe it is in the nightly build.  It is also included in the 1.1
material.  There is an example/test with the software, but it is pretty
basic.  I found it to be stable, but a bit rudimentary.  It is something to
build on though.

bob

- Original Message -
From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


> Thanks I'm going to look a bit harder into the workflow. Is it in the
> nightly build? and is it stable enough to start some experimental
> development on? Or do you think it will have some drastic changes? Any
good
> examples of it's usage?
>
> Sorry for all of the questions. But, I find this very appealing :-)
>
> Brandon Goodin
> Phase Web and Multimedia
> P (406) 862-2245
> F (406) 862-0354
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.phase.ws
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:21 PM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
> No, just working with it as a user.
>
> bob
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:59 PM
> Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
> > Bob,
> >
> > Are you involved in the development of the workflow proposal?
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:50 AM
> > To: Struts Users Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
> >
> >
> > I have looked at the Workflow stuff and will probably use it.  It will
> work
> > great for the problem mentioned here.
> >
> > However, I will be making some changes/extensions to it to make it
easier
> to
> > use.  It is a little too low level "out-of-the-box."  Extending it has
> been
> > easy since all of the basics are there.  The base design looks great - a
> > good start - but needs to be flushed out.
> >
> > bob
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:21 PM
> > Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
> >
> >
> > > Peter do you know anything about the workflow proposal and if it
> addresses
> > > this issue. I don't want to carry on about this if something standard
is
> > in
> > > the works. Also, let's move this discussion over the the developer
> group.
> > I
> > > was a bad boy and started a discussion on the dev and the user. Bad
> > posting
> > > edicate :-).
> > >
> > > Brandon Goodin
> > > Phase Web and Multimedia
> > > P (406) 862-2245
> > > F (406) 862-0354
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.phase.ws
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Peter Pilgrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:06 AM
> > > To: Struts Users Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I got the XML completely wrong, haven't I
> > >
> > >  > > xmlns:struts="http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/struts-config.dtd";
> > >xmlns  xmls:acme="http://www.acme.com/acton-processor"; >
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > 
> > >   
> > >   
> > > 
> > >   
> > >name="com.mydomain.UserAuthorize">
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > Extension are recognised inside a  tag.
> > >
> > > In this way nobody is forced to use the  tags.
> > > Developer add other extension or replace the existing one with
> > > better extensions, or delete a deprecated extension.
> > >
> > > All extension are then optionally and downloadable and plug-in able.
> > >
> > > Unless my understanding my of X

RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-26 Thread Phase Web and Multimedia 

Thanks I'm going to look a bit harder into the workflow. Is it in the
nightly build? and is it stable enough to start some experimental
development on? Or do you think it will have some drastic changes? Any good
examples of it's usage?

Sorry for all of the questions. But, I find this very appealing :-)

Brandon Goodin
Phase Web and Multimedia
P (406) 862-2245
F (406) 862-0354
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phase.ws


-Original Message-
From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:21 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


No, just working with it as a user.

bob

- Original Message -
From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


> Bob,
>
> Are you involved in the development of the workflow proposal?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:50 AM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
> I have looked at the Workflow stuff and will probably use it.  It will
work
> great for the problem mentioned here.
>
> However, I will be making some changes/extensions to it to make it easier
to
> use.  It is a little too low level "out-of-the-box."  Extending it has
been
> easy since all of the basics are there.  The base design looks great - a
> good start - but needs to be flushed out.
>
> bob
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:21 PM
> Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
> > Peter do you know anything about the workflow proposal and if it
addresses
> > this issue. I don't want to carry on about this if something standard is
> in
> > the works. Also, let's move this discussion over the the developer
group.
> I
> > was a bad boy and started a discussion on the dev and the user. Bad
> posting
> > edicate :-).
> >
> > Brandon Goodin
> > Phase Web and Multimedia
> > P (406) 862-2245
> > F (406) 862-0354
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.phase.ws
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Peter Pilgrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:06 AM
> > To: Struts Users Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I got the XML completely wrong, haven't I
> >
> >  > xmlns:struts="http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/struts-config.dtd";
> >xmlns  xmls:acme="http://www.acme.com/acton-processor"; >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > 
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > Extension are recognised inside a  tag.
> >
> > In this way nobody is forced to use the  tags.
> > Developer add other extension or replace the existing one with
> > better extensions, or delete a deprecated extension.
> >
> > All extension are then optionally and downloadable and plug-in able.
> >
> > Unless my understanding my of XML and namespaces is completely wrong
> > this should in theory work in principle?
> >
> > --
> > Peter Pilgrim   ++44 (0)207-545-9923
> >
> >  Swamped under electronic
> mails
> >
> >
> >  Message
> > History 
> >
> >
> > From:  Peter Pilgrim/DMGIT/DMG UK/DeuBa@DMG UK on 26/04/2002 14:27 CET
> >
> > Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > To:"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > cc:
> > Subject:Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So why do not subclass Action and make another abstract
> >  AcmeSecureAction of your self that does the login check and
> > the authorise.
> >
> > There is real danger that your other action may accidentally
> > miss the security check, if say a newbie

Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-26 Thread Robert Williams 

No, just working with it as a user.

bob

- Original Message -
From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


> Bob,
>
> Are you involved in the development of the workflow proposal?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:50 AM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
> I have looked at the Workflow stuff and will probably use it.  It will
work
> great for the problem mentioned here.
>
> However, I will be making some changes/extensions to it to make it easier
to
> use.  It is a little too low level "out-of-the-box."  Extending it has
been
> easy since all of the basics are there.  The base design looks great - a
> good start - but needs to be flushed out.
>
> bob
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:21 PM
> Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
> > Peter do you know anything about the workflow proposal and if it
addresses
> > this issue. I don't want to carry on about this if something standard is
> in
> > the works. Also, let's move this discussion over the the developer
group.
> I
> > was a bad boy and started a discussion on the dev and the user. Bad
> posting
> > edicate :-).
> >
> > Brandon Goodin
> > Phase Web and Multimedia
> > P (406) 862-2245
> > F (406) 862-0354
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.phase.ws
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Peter Pilgrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:06 AM
> > To: Struts Users Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I got the XML completely wrong, haven't I
> >
> >  > xmlns:struts="http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/struts-config.dtd";
> >xmlns  xmls:acme="http://www.acme.com/acton-processor"; >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > 
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > Extension are recognised inside a  tag.
> >
> > In this way nobody is forced to use the  tags.
> > Developer add other extension or replace the existing one with
> > better extensions, or delete a deprecated extension.
> >
> > All extension are then optionally and downloadable and plug-in able.
> >
> > Unless my understanding my of XML and namespaces is completely wrong
> > this should in theory work in principle?
> >
> > --
> > Peter Pilgrim   ++44 (0)207-545-9923
> >
> >  Swamped under electronic
> mails
> >
> >
> >  Message
> > History 
> >
> >
> > From:  Peter Pilgrim/DMGIT/DMG UK/DeuBa@DMG UK on 26/04/2002 14:27 CET
> >
> > Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > To:"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > cc:
> > Subject:Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So why do not subclass Action and make another abstract
> >  AcmeSecureAction of your self that does the login check and
> > the authorise.
> >
> > There is real danger that your other action may accidentally
> > miss the security check, if say a newbie developer forgets
> > add the process-group tags.
> >
> > If you want to add this to the struts-config XML then the
> > Struts Digester code needs changing. I would suggest looking at
> > ways that the digester code could be expanded with namespaces
> >
> > http://www.acme.com/aciton-processor";
> >
> > 
> >  
> >   
> >   
> >  
> > 
> >
> > Some sort of factory interface I guess. and additionally
> > ActionServlet init parameters
> >
> > digesterExtension=com.acme.struts.digester.ActionProces

RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-26 Thread Phase Web and Multimedia 

Bob,

Are you involved in the development of the workflow proposal?

-Original Message-
From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:50 AM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


I have looked at the Workflow stuff and will probably use it.  It will work
great for the problem mentioned here.

However, I will be making some changes/extensions to it to make it easier to
use.  It is a little too low level "out-of-the-box."  Extending it has been
easy since all of the basics are there.  The base design looks great - a
good start - but needs to be flushed out.

bob

- Original Message -
From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


> Peter do you know anything about the workflow proposal and if it addresses
> this issue. I don't want to carry on about this if something standard is
in
> the works. Also, let's move this discussion over the the developer group.
I
> was a bad boy and started a discussion on the dev and the user. Bad
posting
> edicate :-).
>
> Brandon Goodin
> Phase Web and Multimedia
> P (406) 862-2245
> F (406) 862-0354
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.phase.ws
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Pilgrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:06 AM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
>
>
> I got the XML completely wrong, haven't I
>
>  xmlns:struts="http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/struts-config.dtd";
>xmlns  xmls:acme="http://www.acme.com/acton-processor"; >
>
> ...
>
> 
>   
>   
> 
>   
>   
> 
>   
> 
>
> ...
>
>
> 
>
> Extension are recognised inside a  tag.
>
> In this way nobody is forced to use the  tags.
> Developer add other extension or replace the existing one with
> better extensions, or delete a deprecated extension.
>
> All extension are then optionally and downloadable and plug-in able.
>
> Unless my understanding my of XML and namespaces is completely wrong
> this should in theory work in principle?
>
> --
> Peter Pilgrim   ++44 (0)207-545-9923
>
>  Swamped under electronic
mails
>
>
>  Message
> History ----------------
>
>
> From:  Peter Pilgrim/DMGIT/DMG UK/DeuBa@DMG UK on 26/04/2002 14:27 CET
>
> Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To:"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject:Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
>
>
>
> So why do not subclass Action and make another abstract
>  AcmeSecureAction of your self that does the login check and
> the authorise.
>
> There is real danger that your other action may accidentally
> miss the security check, if say a newbie developer forgets
> add the process-group tags.
>
> If you want to add this to the struts-config XML then the
> Struts Digester code needs changing. I would suggest looking at
> ways that the digester code could be expanded with namespaces
>
> http://www.acme.com/aciton-processor";
>
> 
>  
>   
>   
>  
> 
>
> Some sort of factory interface I guess. and additionally
> ActionServlet init parameters
>
> digesterExtension=com.acme.struts.digester.ActionProcessor
>
> --
> Peter Pilgrim           ++44 (0)207-545-9923
>
>  Swamped under electronic
mails
>
>
>  Message
> History 
>
>
> From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 26/04/2002 07:46 AST
>
> Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To:"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject:Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
>
>
>
> So for example, if I wanted to ensure a user was logged in, then check
> their authorizatoin for a particular URI, could I do something like:
>
> 
>  
>   
>   
>  
> 
>
> Then I could reuse this logic without having to embed it in each action
> class.
>
> Is this what you're proposing?

Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-26 Thread Robert Williams 

I have looked at the Workflow stuff and will probably use it.  It will work
great for the problem mentioned here.

However, I will be making some changes/extensions to it to make it easier to
use.  It is a little too low level "out-of-the-box."  Extending it has been
easy since all of the basics are there.  The base design looks great - a
good start - but needs to be flushed out.

bob

- Original Message -
From: "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


> Peter do you know anything about the workflow proposal and if it addresses
> this issue. I don't want to carry on about this if something standard is
in
> the works. Also, let's move this discussion over the the developer group.
I
> was a bad boy and started a discussion on the dev and the user. Bad
posting
> edicate :-).
>
> Brandon Goodin
> Phase Web and Multimedia
> P (406) 862-2245
> F (406) 862-0354
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.phase.ws
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Pilgrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:06 AM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
>
>
> I got the XML completely wrong, haven't I
>
>  xmlns:struts="http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/struts-config.dtd";
>xmlns  xmls:acme="http://www.acme.com/acton-processor"; >
>
> ...
>
> 
>   
>   
> 
>   
>   
> 
>   
> 
>
> ...
>
>
> 
>
> Extension are recognised inside a  tag.
>
> In this way nobody is forced to use the  tags.
> Developer add other extension or replace the existing one with
> better extensions, or delete a deprecated extension.
>
> All extension are then optionally and downloadable and plug-in able.
>
> Unless my understanding my of XML and namespaces is completely wrong
> this should in theory work in principle?
>
> --
> Peter Pilgrim   ++44 (0)207-545-9923
>
>  Swamped under electronic
mails
>
>
>  Message
> History ----------------
>
>
> From:  Peter Pilgrim/DMGIT/DMG UK/DeuBa@DMG UK on 26/04/2002 14:27 CET
>
> Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To:"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject:Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
>
>
>
> So why do not subclass Action and make another abstract
>  AcmeSecureAction of your self that does the login check and
> the authorise.
>
> There is real danger that your other action may accidentally
> miss the security check, if say a newbie developer forgets
> add the process-group tags.
>
> If you want to add this to the struts-config XML then the
> Struts Digester code needs changing. I would suggest looking at
> ways that the digester code could be expanded with namespaces
>
> http://www.acme.com/aciton-processor";
>
> 
>  
>   
>   
>  
> 
>
> Some sort of factory interface I guess. and additionally
> ActionServlet init parameters
>
> digesterExtension=com.acme.struts.digester.ActionProcessor
>
> --
> Peter Pilgrim           ++44 (0)207-545-9923
>
>  Swamped under electronic
mails
>
>
>  Message
> History 
>
>
> From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 26/04/2002 07:46 AST
>
> Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To:"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject:Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
>
>
>
> So for example, if I wanted to ensure a user was logged in, then check
> their authorizatoin for a particular URI, could I do something like:
>
> 
>  
>   
>   
>  
> 
>
> Then I could reuse this logic without having to embed it in each action
> class.
>
> Is this what you're proposing? Do I understand correctly?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/25/2002 05:36:57 PM
>
> Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
>   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To:

RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-26 Thread Phase Web and Multimedia 

Peter do you know anything about the workflow proposal and if it addresses
this issue. I don't want to carry on about this if something standard is in
the works. Also, let's move this discussion over the the developer group. I
was a bad boy and started a discussion on the dev and the user. Bad posting
edicate :-).

Brandon Goodin
Phase Web and Multimedia
P (406) 862-2245
F (406) 862-0354
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phase.ws

-Original Message-
From: Peter Pilgrim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:06 AM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility




I got the XML completely wrong, haven't I

http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/struts-config.dtd";
   xmlns  xmls:acme="http://www.acme.com/acton-processor"; >

...


  
  

  
  

  


...




Extension are recognised inside a  tag.

In this way nobody is forced to use the  tags.
Developer add other extension or replace the existing one with
better extensions, or delete a deprecated extension.

All extension are then optionally and downloadable and plug-in able.

Unless my understanding my of XML and namespaces is completely wrong
this should in theory work in principle?

--
Peter Pilgrim   ++44 (0)207-545-9923

 Swamped under electronic mails


 Message
History 


From:  Peter Pilgrim/DMGIT/DMG UK/DeuBa@DMG UK on 26/04/2002 14:27 CET

Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility





So why do not subclass Action and make another abstract
 AcmeSecureAction of your self that does the login check and
the authorise.

There is real danger that your other action may accidentally
miss the security check, if say a newbie developer forgets
add the process-group tags.

If you want to add this to the struts-config XML then the
Struts Digester code needs changing. I would suggest looking at
ways that the digester code could be expanded with namespaces

http://www.acme.com/aciton-processor";


 
  
  
 


Some sort of factory interface I guess. and additionally
ActionServlet init parameters

digesterExtension=com.acme.struts.digester.ActionProcessor

--
Peter Pilgrim   ++44 (0)207-545-9923

 Swamped under electronic mails


 Message
History 


From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 26/04/2002 07:46 AST

Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility





So for example, if I wanted to ensure a user was logged in, then check
their authorizatoin for a particular URI, could I do something like:


 
  
  
 


Then I could reuse this logic without having to embed it in each action
class.

Is this what you're proposing? Do I understand correctly?








"Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/25/2002 05:36:57 PM

Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   "Struts User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:  Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


Okay here is the idea I proposed earlier ("Struts (MVC) Shortcomings?") in
more solid thought.

My hope in this is to provide an non-hard-coding mechanism to take
advantage
of reusable logic without having to forward around to a bunch of Action
classes (which doesn't work anyways).

Here is my proposal:

An action mapping could have an associated Process Config specified in the
 of the action class. Something like:


An associated config file called processor.xml could be set up to define
process patterns that have names associated with the value attribute of the
set-property. Something like:

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 


This config info could be placed into the Application Scope at the app
startup using the plugin mechanism of Struts 1.1.

When an Action is called it would look to see what "process group" it needs
to call and using reflection to perform the specified chain of processing
in
the order specified in the process-groupname config.

A process class would conform to an interface and would have access to
everything that the Action has access to. This way any errors or scoped
beans/Attributes that need to be set can be set from within the pro

Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-26 Thread Peter Pilgrim 



I got the XML completely wrong, haven't I

http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/struts-config.dtd";
   xmlns  xmls:acme="http://www.acme.com/acton-processor"; >

...


  
  

  
  

  


...




Extension are recognised inside a  tag.

In this way nobody is forced to use the  tags.
Developer add other extension or replace the existing one with
better extensions, or delete a deprecated extension.

All extension are then optionally and downloadable and plug-in able.

Unless my understanding my of XML and namespaces is completely wrong
this should in theory work in principle?

--
Peter Pilgrim   ++44 (0)207-545-9923

 Swamped under electronic mails


 Message History 



From:  Peter Pilgrim/DMGIT/DMG UK/DeuBa@DMG UK on 26/04/2002 14:27 CET

Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:    Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility





So why do not subclass Action and make another abstract
 AcmeSecureAction of your self that does the login check and
the authorise.

There is real danger that your other action may accidentally
miss the security check, if say a newbie developer forgets
add the process-group tags.

If you want to add this to the struts-config XML then the
Struts Digester code needs changing. I would suggest looking at
ways that the digester code could be expanded with namespaces

http://www.acme.com/aciton-processor";


 
  
  
 


Some sort of factory interface I guess. and additionally
ActionServlet init parameters

digesterExtension=com.acme.struts.digester.ActionProcessor

--
Peter Pilgrim   ++44 (0)207-545-9923

 Swamped under electronic mails


 Message History 



From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 26/04/2002 07:46 AST

Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:    "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility





So for example, if I wanted to ensure a user was logged in, then check
their authorizatoin for a particular URI, could I do something like:


 
  
  
 


Then I could reuse this logic without having to embed it in each action
class.

Is this what you're proposing? Do I understand correctly?








"Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/25/2002 05:36:57 PM

Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   "Struts User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:  Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


Okay here is the idea I proposed earlier ("Struts (MVC) Shortcomings?") in
more solid thought.

My hope in this is to provide an non-hard-coding mechanism to take
advantage
of reusable logic without having to forward around to a bunch of Action
classes (which doesn't work anyways).

Here is my proposal:

An action mapping could have an associated Process Config specified in the
 of the action class. Something like:


An associated config file called processor.xml could be set up to define
process patterns that have names associated with the value attribute of the
set-property. Something like:

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 


This config info could be placed into the Application Scope at the app
startup using the plugin mechanism of Struts 1.1.

When an Action is called it would look to see what "process group" it needs
to call and using reflection to perform the specified chain of processing
in
the order specified in the process-groupname config.

A process class would conform to an interface and would have access to
everything that the Action has access to. This way any errors or scoped
beans/Attributes that need to be set can be set from within the process
class. Also, the process class could access other logic beans for sql and
such.

Any unique coding that needs to happen can still be contained in an Action
class. But for code that is reusable. This would be very nice.

Brandon Goodin
Phase Web and Multimedia
P (406) 862-2245
F (406) 862-0354
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phase.ws


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>







---
This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use
of the individual

Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-26 Thread Peter Pilgrim 




So why do not subclass Action and make another abstract
 AcmeSecureAction of your self that does the login check and
the authorise.

There is real danger that your other action may accidentally
miss the security check, if say a newbie developer forgets
add the process-group tags.

If you want to add this to the struts-config XML then the
Struts Digester code needs changing. I would suggest looking at
ways that the digester code could be expanded with namespaces

http://www.acme.com/aciton-processor";


 
  
  
 


Some sort of factory interface I guess. and additionally
ActionServlet init parameters

digesterExtension=com.acme.struts.digester.ActionProcessor

--
Peter Pilgrim   ++44 (0)207-545-9923

 Swamped under electronic mails


 Message History 



From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 26/04/2002 07:46 AST

Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility





So for example, if I wanted to ensure a user was logged in, then check
their authorizatoin for a particular URI, could I do something like:


 
  
  
 


Then I could reuse this logic without having to embed it in each action
class.

Is this what you're proposing? Do I understand correctly?








"Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/25/2002 05:36:57 PM

Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   "Struts User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:  Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


Okay here is the idea I proposed earlier ("Struts (MVC) Shortcomings?") in
more solid thought.

My hope in this is to provide an non-hard-coding mechanism to take
advantage
of reusable logic without having to forward around to a bunch of Action
classes (which doesn't work anyways).

Here is my proposal:

An action mapping could have an associated Process Config specified in the
 of the action class. Something like:


An associated config file called processor.xml could be set up to define
process patterns that have names associated with the value attribute of the
set-property. Something like:

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 


This config info could be placed into the Application Scope at the app
startup using the plugin mechanism of Struts 1.1.

When an Action is called it would look to see what "process group" it needs
to call and using reflection to perform the specified chain of processing
in
the order specified in the process-groupname config.

A process class would conform to an interface and would have access to
everything that the Action has access to. This way any errors or scoped
beans/Attributes that need to be set can be set from within the process
class. Also, the process class could access other logic beans for sql and
such.

Any unique coding that needs to happen can still be contained in an Action
class. But for code that is reusable. This would be very nice.

Brandon Goodin
Phase Web and Multimedia
P (406) 862-2245
F (406) 862-0354
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phase.ws


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>







---
This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, proprietary , confidential and exempt from
disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately.
---


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>






--

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the 
intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender 
immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or 
distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-26 Thread Kevin . Bedell 




So for example, if I wanted to ensure a user was logged in, then check
their authorizatoin for a particular URI, could I do something like:


 
  
  
 


Then I could reuse this logic without having to embed it in each action
class.

Is this what you're proposing? Do I understand correctly?








"Phase Web and Multimedia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/25/2002 05:36:57 PM

Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To:   "Struts User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:  Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


Okay here is the idea I proposed earlier ("Struts (MVC) Shortcomings?") in
more solid thought.

My hope in this is to provide an non-hard-coding mechanism to take
advantage
of reusable logic without having to forward around to a bunch of Action
classes (which doesn't work anyways).

Here is my proposal:

An action mapping could have an associated Process Config specified in the
 of the action class. Something like:


An associated config file called processor.xml could be set up to define
process patterns that have names associated with the value attribute of the
set-property. Something like:

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 


This config info could be placed into the Application Scope at the app
startup using the plugin mechanism of Struts 1.1.

When an Action is called it would look to see what "process group" it needs
to call and using reflection to perform the specified chain of processing
in
the order specified in the process-groupname config.

A process class would conform to an interface and would have access to
everything that the Action has access to. This way any errors or scoped
beans/Attributes that need to be set can be set from within the process
class. Also, the process class could access other logic beans for sql and
such.

Any unique coding that needs to happen can still be contained in an Action
class. But for code that is reusable. This would be very nice.

Brandon Goodin
Phase Web and Multimedia
P (406) 862-2245
F (406) 862-0354
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phase.ws


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>







---
This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, proprietary , confidential and exempt from
disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately.
---


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail:

RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-25 Thread Phase Web and Multimedia 

An Additional thought is that  can also be used to call the processor at redirection time. I
am not sure how the set-property for the forward tag is accessed. But it's
food for thougth. This might be a way to specify when a process is
executed... pre or post.

Brandon Goodin
Phase Web and Multimedia
P (406) 862-2245
F (406) 862-0354
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phase.ws


-Original Message-
From: Phase Web and Multimedia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 4:36 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


You are correct, it does sound like an Action class and really it would be
in many ways. But, The difference is that it does not forward anywhere it
merely performs data preparation and processing without having to bounce
around to several Action classes. The Action uses the process chain defined
in the process.xml doc to prepare data for the view. The action could still
do specific functions that it needs to do to then route to the proper view.

My thoughts were also that the processing of the Process chain could be
specified to happen either pre or post (not sure though, I haven't gotten
that far in my thoughts).

I imagine also there might be some conditional issues. But, that is why I
don't want to make it an Action class. It is possible though that maybe this
would be taken further. I just think that we have to be able to reuse more
logic easier. The current structure requires a fair amount of
predertermination and not quite enough modularity.

Brandon Goodin
Phase Web and Multimedia
P (406) 862-2245
F (406) 862-0354
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phase.ws


-Original Message-
From: Tim Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:41 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


Does the interface of a Process differ at all from Action? This sounds
like something that could possibly be implemented now by making a
ChainingAction or some such that simply called the perform method of a
(configurable) list of other action classes.  How does the servlet
determine the view to ultimately forward to?  I could imagine either
using the return value of the last Process or using the first non-null
return value if you wanted to allow intermediate steps to break out of
the process.
--
Tim Moore / Blackboard Inc. / Software Engineer
1899 L Street, NW / 5th Floor / Washington, DC 20036
Phone 202-463-4860 ext. 258 / Fax 202-463-4863


> -Original Message-
> From: Phase Web and Multimedia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 5:32 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility
>
>
> Okay here is the idea I proposed earlier ("Struts (MVC)
> Shortcomings?") in more solid thought.
>
> My hope in this is to provide an non-hard-coding mechanism to
> take advantage of reusable logic without having to forward
> around to a bunch of Action classes (which doesn't work anyways).
>
> Here is my proposal:
>
> An action mapping could have an associated Process Config
> specified in the  of the action class.
> Something like: 
>
> An associated config file called processor.xml could be set
> up to define process patterns that have names associated with
> the value attribute of the set-property. Something like: 
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
> 
>
> This config info could be placed into the Application Scope
> at the app startup using the plugin mechanism of Struts 1.1.
>
> When an Action is called it would look to see what "process
> group" it needs to call and using reflection to perform the
> specified chain of processing in the order specified in the
> process-groupname config.
>
> A process class would conform to an interface and would have
> access to everything that the Action has access to. This way
> any errors or scoped beans/Attributes that need to be set can
> be set from within the process class. Also, the process class
> could access other logic beans for sql and such.
>
> Any unique coding that needs to happen can still be contained
> in an Action class. But for code that is reusable. This would
> be very nice.
>
> Brandon Goodin
> Phase Web and Multimedia
> P (406) 862-2245
> F (406) 862-0354
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.phase.ws
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Phase Web and Multimedia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 1:25 PM
> To: Struts Dev; Struts User
> Subject: Struts (MVC) Shortcomings?
>
>
> I am throwing this post out there in the hopes that it will
>

RE: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-25 Thread Phase Web and Multimedia 

My thoughts are that the processing could be specified as post or pre. It
would not replace the Action. The function of the process would be to
prepare common data preparation operations... not take the control from the
Action class.

Brandon Goodin
Phase Web and Multimedia
P (406) 862-2245
F (406) 862-0354
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phase.ws


-Original Message-
From: James A. Hillyerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:49 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility


Would this process chain completely replace the Action, or would there
still always be an Action.  If so, am I correct in thinking the process
chain executes first, then passes control to the Action?

If the chain completely replaces an action, how would the ActionForward
value be determined?

-james

--
[]  James A. Hillyerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Java Software Engineer
[]  PGP 1024D/D31BC40D F87B 7906 C0DA 32E8 B8F6 DE23 FBF6 4712 D31B C40D


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Struts Improvement Proposal: Logic Extensibility

2002-04-25 Thread James A. Hillyerd 

Would this process chain completely replace the Action, or would there
still always be an Action.  If so, am I correct in thinking the process
chain executes first, then passes control to the Action?

If the chain completely replaces an action, how would the ActionForward
value be determined?

-james

-- 
[]  James A. Hillyerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Java Software Engineer
[]  PGP 1024D/D31BC40D F87B 7906 C0DA 32E8 B8F6 DE23 FBF6 4712 D31B C40D


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: