My only concern would be using the term "context" to imply more than one
object.
IMHO, there should be a functional non-httpd framework below Struts,
that would provide things like a Context Object, which would be a
generic version of the HttpRequest. At the Stuts level, you could then
have av
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My only concern would be using the term "context" to imply more than one
>
> object.
>
> IMHO, there should be a functional non-httpd framework below Struts,
> that would provide things like a Context Object, which would be a
> generic version of the
--- Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a little "me-too" here, but I think both Ted and David have good
> points. Ted's approach to adding a controller to the ActionForward
> is a relatively small change to the infrastructure that can offer a
> lot of gain. And I've been intereste
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Mike Jasnowski wrote:
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:50:29 -0400
> From: Mike Jasnowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sub
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Mainguy, Mike wrote:
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:03:14 -0400
> From: "Mainguy, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 'Struts Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: R
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
One of the potential problems in a Context-based environment is knowing
which keys you are using to store and retrieve stuff -- obviously, the
producer and consumer of a piece of data need to agree. It is also
important that people looking at a Command should be able to
Hi, Peter,
Yah, there are some that don't like free knowledge or listening. So there
was no way to not offend some people. I appreciate that. Why I don't
know, and I don't need to know. But, I have a watch. LOL.
Micael
At 12:50 AM 8/13/2003 +0100, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
Micael wrote:
Sig
Micael wrote:
Sigh! I cannot stand bad grammar, so once again I must remind my nerd
+++
friends that "et al" strictly applies to people, and that an
~~~ ^ ^
ActionForward, while dear to my heart, is just not a person. LOL! I
* && ew%&U(
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
>
> So we could have convenience methods such as
>
> StrutsWebContext scontext = (StrutsWebContext)context;
> // Where ``StrutsWebContext'' is a type of ``ServletWebContext''
>
> ActionForm form = scontext.getActionForm();
> ActionMapping mapping = sco
Comment at the bottom of this message...
- Original Message -
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
At 21:36 -0700 8/13/03, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> Ted H more or less suggested this, but I think the way to go is to
> give each command an opportunity to validate any contract
> pre-conditions, like expecting certain beans to be defined in the
context. You could even just leave this up to
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Joe Germuska wrote:
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:01:30 -0500
> From: Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: ActionForwards, et al (
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 07:48:57 +0100
> From: Peter A. Pilgrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: ActionF
> the patch is here:
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18002
This one needs to be in a 1.1 release.
-TPP
-
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recip
003 7:11 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
Comment at the bottom of this message...
- Original Message -
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
S
David Graham wrote:
No, I was thinking Actions would be passed an ActionContext in their
execute() method similar to how Servlets know about a ServletContext. The
ActionContext would contain the HttpServletRequest, form bean, etc. and
would serve to keep the API stable while allowing flexibility i
Ted Husted wrote:
Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
> If the interface was supposed to be environment free what would
> this interface be?
Have a look at the abstract WebContext in the Craig's new Chain of
Responsibility package.
http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/nightly/commons-chain/
So
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Mainguy, Mike wrote:
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:05:15 -0400
> From: "Mainguy, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 'Struts Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject
--- "Peter A. Pilgrim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Graham wrote:
> > --- "PILGRIM, Peter, FM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>>-Original Message-
> >>>From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>--//--
> >>
> >>
> >>>I chose my words carefully when I said "ActionContext
> -Original Message-
> From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 11 August 2003 14:47
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
>
>
> --- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David Graham wr
At 9:07 PM -0400 8/12/03, Byrne, Steven wrote:
I guess I have to reiterate what others have said earlier today: how do
you deal with handling or enforcing composition order? I.e. are you
implicitly assuming/requiring that the various elements in the chain are
orthogonal with respect to changes in
AIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:02 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
At 9:07 PM -0400 8/12/03, Byrne, Steven wrote:
>I guess I have to reiterate what others have said earlier today: how do
>you deal with handling or e
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Sgarlata Matt wrote:
> > In terms of making the infrastructure available to callers, it's pretty
> > clear how passing a context object around makes the infrastructure
> > available to anyone who needs it. Are there other options for how you'd
> > make the infrastructure avai
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Ted Husted wrote:
> Since, I'm lead to understand Craig finds "http" hard to say when he
> gives talks =:)
>
Ah, you've heard me trip over that one? :-).
I actually like "web" better than "http" for a different reason -- it
doesn't presume the "one true way" protocol will b
> -Original Message-
> From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--//--
>
> I chose my words carefully when I said "ActionContext interface". I
> *think* we can all agree that if we added this it should be
> an interface
> :-).
----
Why would want the ActionContext to be an in
David Graham wrote:
What I think we're seeing here
is that we've outgrown our ActionForward declarations and need some new
ones. I'm fine with adding a SuccessAction but would really like to see
us discuss future possibilities in this area.
This may not be what you meant, but I've been thinking th
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Ted Husted wrote:
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:33:31 -0400
> From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was
g.
Comments?
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:37 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> One of the potential problems in a Context-based environmen
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Graham wrote:
> > What I think we're seeing here
> > is that we've outgrown our ActionForward declarations and need some
> new
> > ones. I'm fine with adding a SuccessAction but would really like to
> see
> > us discuss future possibilities in this
Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
> If the interface was supposed to be environment free what would
> this interface be?
Have a look at the abstract WebContext in the Craig's new Chain of
Responsibility package.
http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-commons/nightly/commons-chain/
So, the ActionContext
At 12:48 -0700 8/12/03, David Graham wrote:
The main goal of an ActionContext being passed to Action.execute() methods
would be to separate Actions from the Servlet API so that you could write
Actions to respond to Porlets. It would also serve to stabalize the
execute() method's interface and allo
> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--//--
>
> The idea would be to give ActionForward a type property for a Java
> class. If the property is specified, instead of just taking
> the path as
> it stands, the Controller would call a "prepare" method o
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Peter A. Pilgrim wrote:
So we could have convenience methods such as
StrutsWebContext scontext = (StrutsWebContext)context;
// Where ``StrutsWebContext'' is a type of ``ServletWebContext''
ActionForm form = scontext.getActionForm();
ActionMapping
> -Original Message-
> From: Micael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hi, Peter,
>
> Yah, there are some that don't like free knowledge or
> listening. So there
> was no way to not offend some people. I appreciate that.
> Why I don't
> know, and I don't need to know. But, I have a wat
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Byrne, Steven wrote:
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:07:42 -0400
> From: "Byrne, Steven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: R
ers List
Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
David Graham wrote:
> No, I was thinking Actions would be passed an ActionContext in their
> execute() method similar to how Servlets know about a ServletContext. The
> ActionContext would contain the HttpServletRequest, form be
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
In addition, commons-chain provides a couple of layers of Context
implementation (optional, compiled only if you have the corresponding
APIs) for web applications:
Actually optional compiling doesn't work, I believe in commons-chain but
could be the contrib.
I was 12:30
PILGRIM, Peter, FM wrote:
Would this new ActionForward be created each time like it is now?
ActionForwards (or FowardConfigs) are instantiated when the Struts
Config is digested and stored in a Map. FindForward then returns the
instance directly from the Map. So they are already singleton instanc
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Joe Germuska wrote:
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:06:59 -0500
> From: Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al
This threw me at first too. It works if you set the property to a
nonexistent path.
There's also a typo in the build file. Under the compile target, the
lines should be
Assuming Craig won't mind, I'll post these little fixes. =:0)
-Ted.
Robert Leland wrote:
Actually optional co
Sigh! I cannot stand bad grammar, so once again I must remind my nerd
friends that "et al" strictly applies to people, and that an ActionForward,
while dear to my heart, is just not a person. LOL! I hope you take this
as interesting and new knowledge and not as a pain in the patoosh. Bye 'd
Just a little "me-too" here, but I think both Ted and David have good
points. Ted's approach to adding a controller to the ActionForward
is a relatively small change to the infrastructure that can offer a
lot of gain. And I've been interested in seeing some kind of
ActionContext class for qu
David Graham wrote:
--- "PILGRIM, Peter, FM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--//--
I chose my words carefully when I said "ActionContext interface". I
*think* we can all agree that if we added this it should be
an interface
:-
--- "PILGRIM, Peter, FM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --//--
>
> >
> > I chose my words carefully when I said "ActionContext interface". I
> > *think* we can all agree that if we added this it should be
> > an in
And to add another pedantic log to the fire... :)
Quoted from dictionary.com because it's easier than looking it up in
a real text:
---
et al
adv 1: used as an abbreviation of `et alii' (masc. plural) or `et
aliae' (fem. plural) or `et alia' (neut. plural) when referring to a
nu
I guess I have to reiterate what others have said earlier today: how do
you deal with handling or enforcing composition order? I.e. are you
implicitly assuming/requiring that the various elements in the chain are
orthogonal with respect to changes in the input/output "stream" or
changes in stat
> -Original Message-
>
> In the future, we should be able to write pure business Actions that
> don't use http semantics, and only use the http version when we
> absolutely need to. In practice, most of us rarely use the
> http services
> of the HttpRequest, and the same Actions could
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Graham wrote:
> > No, I was thinking Actions would be passed an ActionContext in their
> > execute() method similar to how Servlets know about a ServletContext.
> The
> > ActionContext would contain the HttpServletRequest, form bean, etc.
> and
> >
Hi
Some time ago I submitted a couple of refactorings to the
DispatchAction/LookupDispatchAction classes. Since there was a recent
discussion on these actions, I was wondering if that patch was going to
be submitted for 1.2. Is there anything else I need to do?
the patch is here:
http://issues
concern between "choosing the
> Resource" and "preparing the context for the Resource", it becomes
> easier for people to Do The Right Thing.
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:47 AM
To: Struts Develop
ng like this added. We've
already added something like you
describe to our application.
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:47 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: ActionForwards, et al (was SuccessAction)
--- Ted Husted
51 matches
Mail list logo
