Re: [Stripes-users] re quest/response scoping

2011-03-03 Thread Tony Drago
Soren Pedersen wrote: I have not tried Spring MVC. I dropped it when I looked at the XML configuration file(s)... Perhaps this has gotten better lately, I don't know. SpringMVC has really improved in this area. Since version 2.5 (current version is 3.0.X) you can basically do

Re: [Stripes-users] re quest/response scoping

2011-03-03 Thread Tony Drago
Nikolaos Giannopoulos wrote: Encapsulation in OO IMHO pertains to the class as a whole not the method level. If you want to encapsulate at the method level then your going to have a hard time not allowing someone to access and affect other attributes of the class (e.g. other

Re: [Stripes-users] re quest/response scoping

2011-03-03 Thread Jeppe Cramon
Hi Tony I agree IF Stripes would allow you to supply parameters for Action Methods, like Spring MVC or JERSEY (REST), that would mean a good cleanup and better encapsulation. /Jeppe It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it.” -

Re: [Stripes-users] re quest/response scoping

2011-03-03 Thread VANKEISBELCK Remi
Hi folks, This has already been discussed on the mailing list (not so long ago). The debate is open, and ultimately it's a personal preference : some prefer method parameters a la Spring, others favor properties. I think there is no answer here : both methods have their pros and cons, and will

Re: [Stripes-users] re quest/response scoping

2011-03-03 Thread Janne Jalkanen
Again, I'm not attempting to prove that SpringMVC is better than Stripes, the question of interest is whether Stripes encourages bad practice from an OO point-of-view? I suppose it depends on your definition of OO - I use subclassing in my ActionBeans so that I can share common parameters and

Re: [Stripes-users] re quest/response scoping

2011-03-03 Thread Poitras Christian
Hi Tony, Personally, I would code the action bean differently making it look almost exactly like the Spring version. // ANNOTATIONS, GETTERS AND SETTERS OMITTED FOR BREVITY class MyActionBean extends BaseActionBean { private User user; Resolution deleteUser() {

Re: [Stripes-users] re quest/response scoping

2011-03-03 Thread Nikolaos Giannopoulos
Totally agree with Christian that the Stripes version can be redefined as Christian points out. Moreover, when doing CRUD operations we typically need to display the entity that the user wants to delete and ask for user confirmation i.e. we don't just ask the user if they wants to delete id

Re: [Stripes-users] re quest/response scoping

2011-03-03 Thread Gérald Quintana
Hello, I was about to write the same reply as Christian. To go further, compare // ANNOTATIONS OMITTED FOR BREVITY class MyController { @Autowired private UserService userService; public ModelAndView prepareUser(Integer userId) { ModelAndView modelAndView=new

Re: [Stripes-users] re quest/response scoping

2011-03-03 Thread Will Hartung
On Mar 3, 2011, at 1:52 AM, Tony Drago wrote: // ANNOTATIONS OMITTED FOR BREVITY class MyController { public String deleteUser(Integer userId) { userService.deleteUser(userId); return redirect:/listUsers; } public ModelAndView addUser(User user) {