Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Change in exception handling suggestion

2003-11-03 Thread Hani Suleiman
ExceptionAware! Chris Nokleberg wrote: Joseph Ottinger wrote: What I'd thought of was adding an extra method to Action and ActionSupport. The Action method's signature might look like this: public String handleException(Throwable t) throws Throwable; The ActionSupport implementation: public S

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Change in exception handling suggestion

2003-11-03 Thread Joseph Ottinger
Well, the original context was in that of WW1.3 as opposed to WW2, but that would work as well, and certainly be more flexible, I suppose, with nicer behaviour towards those who already implemented the pattern in their own actions. On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Chris Nokleberg wrote: > Joseph Ottinger wrot

[OS-webwork] Re: Change in exception handling suggestion

2003-11-03 Thread Chris Nokleberg
Joseph Ottinger wrote: > What I'd thought of was adding an extra method to Action and > ActionSupport. The Action method's signature might look like this: > > public String handleException(Throwable t) throws Throwable; > > The ActionSupport implementation: > > public String handleException(Thr

Re: [OS-webwork] Change in exception handling suggestion

2003-11-03 Thread Hani Suleiman
James Cook wrote: I thought of a pointless insult. ;-) We used this pattern in a large application and it worked well. BTW, for Hani's edification (http://www.jroller.com/page/fate/20031029#opensymphony_dirty_laundry), this is not a toy application, but rather a large app that manages billions of

RE: [OS-webwork] Change in exception handling suggestion

2003-11-03 Thread Joseph Ottinger
Well, the pattern (I won't call it an anti-pattern) is to do something like this: public abstract class FooActionBase extends ActionSupport { public doExecute() throws Exception { try { return process(); } catch(Exception blah) { // maybe make a note of the error somewhere, o

RE: [OS-webwork] Change in exception handling suggestion

2003-11-03 Thread James Cook
> -Original Message- > Behalf Of Joseph Ottinger > What I'd thought of was adding an extra method to Action and > ActionSupport. The Action method's signature might look like this: > ... > Thoughts? Insults? Points? I thought of a pointless insult. ;-) We used this pattern in a large app

Re: [OS-webwork] Change in exception handling suggestion

2003-11-03 Thread Joseph Ottinger
Although my response is that you're not simply handling the exceptions: you're providing a container-neutral routing point. The servlet container doesn't enter into it. On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Hani Suleiman wrote: > Same argument from me as to why this is a bad approach in ww2. It's > reinventing an

Re: [OS-webwork] Change in exception handling suggestion

2003-11-03 Thread Hani Suleiman
Same argument from me as to why this is a bad approach in ww2. It's reinventing an existing wheel. Sure, it's maybe a bit more convenient to use than the built-in mechanism in the servlet container, but it's still stepping on its toes and making things that little bit murkier. Joseph Ottinger w

[OS-webwork] Change in exception handling suggestion

2003-11-03 Thread Joseph Ottinger
A client of mine has been trying out WW1.3 and the exception handling around execute() yielded a question and suggestion. The issue is that throwing exceptions either bubbles up to the webapp layer, or involves a pattern where a common ActionSupport derivative wraps a method call in various try/cat

[OS-webwork] lil' tool to help w/ template refactoring

2003-11-03 Thread CVillela
Title: lil' tool to help w/ template refactoring Hi folks! I've been badly burned by a change in our domain model, and unfortunately I found out that refactoring a domain model after coding tons of velocity templates with forms that change the objects directly using a Model-Driven action is

Re: [OS-webwork] Anyone working on Spring Framework Integration?

2003-11-03 Thread Cameron Braid
I have made a component interceptor that works quite like that. All I need to do in my actions is define the mapping from action properties to spring bean names like this : ... accountsDao=accountsDao ... Another way to do this is to use the same enab

Re: [OS-webwork] Exception handler proposal

2003-11-03 Thread John Patterson
The functionality that I need right now is to define an error page for each "section" (namespace) of my site. So if an uncaught exception occurs in any Action or view within that section an error handling action will be executed. Handling exceptions from within execute() is not good enough. The

RE: [OS-webwork] Anyone working on Spring Framework Integration?

2003-11-03 Thread James Cook
I had thought the components.xml file would be a natural integration point for Spring factory beans. To this end, I have written my own WebWork enabler interface and exposed our Spring factories this way. It seems lighter weight and a more natural WebWork integration point than coupling the web-tie

RE: [OS-webwork] Exception handler proposal

2003-11-03 Thread Fred Lamuette
I'm sure that an exception handler mechanism for XWork is not necessary, but an advantage that could satisfy a part of the WW community is not bad. I can understand all of your points of view, but when a framework proposes an optional valuable feature, it's obviously good to promote the framework.