I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
and the action would always forward to that forward? In that case,
you could count on using the first one.
Just thinking that if an anonymous/default ActionForward were allowed, then
it could also be useful for other actions.
Action...yet ;-)
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 8, 2003 8:36 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addition of two new actions)
I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Cooper
Sent: August 4, 2003 10:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions
I'm +1 on this, other than on naming. I think ParameterDispatchAction is
definitely the wrong
: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
Addition of two new actions)
I *think* we agreed to add this action. Pick a name.
[ ] ParameterDispatchAction
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 4, 2003 3:06 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
--- Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't suggested another way of specifying a forward. Just
providing
Action...yet ;-)
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 8, 2003 8:36 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addition of two new actions)
I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
]
Sent: August 5, 2003 6:52 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
--- Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not a general purpose action.
IMO, limited use inflexible actions don't belong in the Struts distro.
We
should provide common
(Was RE: Addition of
two new actions)
I'd say it was more like a poll to get an early consensus on the best
name for the class. Any product change would still be subject to a veto
before the next release.
James Mitchell wrote:
Is this a vote? If so, shouldn't we have [VOTE] on the subject
: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
Addition of two new actions)
I *think* we agreed to add this action. Pick a name.
[ ] ParameterDispatchAction
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 9, 2003 3:56 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addition of two new actions)
If Action actually does something useful, could we go crazy and default
the
type as well
At 18:18 -0700 8/8/03, Steve Raeburn wrote:
I don't think that you could rely on the ActionForwards being returned in
the same order each time, so forwarding to the first one found would not be
guaranteed to work.
I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
and the action
hi ,all:
how can I send my questions to all of you ? Could you tell me ? Thanks~~
mqg
- SOUVENIR --- .
| Souvenir of China |
| A Good Place for You |
`-- http://www.souvenirchina.com -'
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
Addition of two new actions)
I *think* we agreed to add this action. Pick a name.
[ ] ParameterDispatchAction
--- Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
and the action would always forward to that forward? In that case,
you could count on using the first one.
Just thinking that if an anonymous/default ActionForward were allowed,
:38 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
Addition of two new actions)
I *think* we agreed to add this action. Pick a name.
[ ] ParameterDispatchAction
[ ] MappingDispatchAction
[ ] ConfigDispatchAction
Steve
-Original Message
hi ,all:
how can I send my questions to all of you ? Could you tell me ? Thanks~~
mqg
- SOUVENIR --- .
| Souvenir of China |
| A Good Place for You |
`-- http://www.souvenirchina.com -'
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action...yet ;-)
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 8, 2003 8:36 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addition of two new actions)
I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
Action...yet ;-)
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 8, 2003 8:36 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addition of two new actions)
I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
Addition of two new actions)
I *think* we agreed to add this action. Pick a name.
[ ] ParameterDispatchAction
Action...yet ;-)
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 8, 2003 8:36 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addition of two new actions)
I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 9, 2003 3:13 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE: Addition of
two new actions)
Steve Raeburn wrote:
I *think* we agreed to add this action. Pick a name.
[ ] ParameterDispatchAction
: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
Addition of two new actions)
I *think* we agreed to add this action. Pick a name.
[ ] ParameterDispatchAction
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 8, 2003 8:36 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: SuccessAction (was RE: Addition of two new actions)
I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
and the action would always forward to that forward? In that case,
you
: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
Addition of two new actions)
I *think* we agreed to add this action. Pick a name.
[ ] ParameterDispatchAction
PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Cooper
Sent: August 4, 2003 3:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions
Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're right action forward= is module relative (despite
what it says
in
the Javadoc
Maverick directly supports the idea that a command may have only one
destrintation, and then streamlines its behavior. So we have some
precedent under the great minds theory =:0)
ActionMapping.findForwards only brings back local forwards. So the
DefaultAction could just forward to the first
At 16:51 -0700 8/8/03, David Graham wrote:
I'd like to get your thoughts (and others) on my proposal at the beginning
of this message. In short, we wouldn't use the parameter attribute nor
would we define success as the only correct forward name. SuccessAction
would forward to the first forward
: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
Addition of two new actions)
I *think* we agreed to add this action. Pick a name.
[ ] ParameterDispatchAction
: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:38 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Parameter/Mapping/ConfigDispatchAction (Was RE:
Addition of two new actions)
I *think* we agreed to add this action. Pick a name.
[ ] ParameterDispatchAction
.
David
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Steve Raeburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 4, 2003 1:25 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
In an ideal world, DispatchAction should probably become
ParameterDispatchAction
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 8, 2003 4:51 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: SuccessAction (was RE: Addition of two new actions)
--- Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I'm back. Now where were we...
What you're suggesting
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 4, 2003 3:06 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
--- Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't suggested another way of specifying a forward. Just
providing
an
action that uses the existing, most common
On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 10:05 PM, Joe Germuska wrote:
If you register SmartForwardingAction as your unknown (default)
action, it will take what would have been the action path, append
.jsp, and forward to that JSP. So if someone requests
/HelloWorld.do, the action looks for
At 3:56 -0400 8/4/03, Erik Hatcher wrote:
The only issue that it would have for me though, is we use different
naming conventions for action mappings than we do for JSP pages, so
it would require we either change our conventions or just rename
JSP's when we inject a real action in the middle at
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 3, 2003 3:02 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions
...
I still don't see a need for a SuccessAction in the first place. Why
is
it any better than using a ForwardAction?
I did expand on my reasons, but there's
List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
So, what you really want is LookupDispatchAction without requiring the
developer to create the map-related methods? I think you already get
the
abililty to combine CRUD related actions and things like that. If so
Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 19:29 -0400 8/3/03, Erik Hatcher wrote:
Having a SuccessAction makes it much easier to do
skeleton/storyboarded sites and fill in the details later.
Switching from a SuccessAction to a real action when the time is
At 10:16 -0700 8/4/03, Martin Cooper wrote:
That sounds rather dangerous to me, unless you have some additional control
over which JSP pages can be accessed in this way. From your description, it
sounds like this gives the client blanket access to all the JSP pages in
your app, which I certainly
actions.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 4, 2003 7:03 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
Thanks for the link. I'll respond to that message here:
I'm also throwing an exception if the success
Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Cooper
Sent: August 4, 2003 10:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions
I'm +1 on this, other than on naming. I think ParameterDispatchAction is
definitely the wrong name for the last of these. People
: August 4, 2003 7:03 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
Thanks for the link. I'll respond to that message here:
I'm also throwing an exception if the success ActionForward is not
found to make the configuration problem very clear.
ForwardAction
]
Sent: August 4, 2003 1:32 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
--- Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right action forward= is module relative (despite what it
says in
the Javadoc). However, I don't see how it can used with a context
-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 4, 2003 7:03 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
Thanks for the link. I'll respond to that message here:
I'm also throwing an exception if the success ActionForward is not
found to make
think this would just
reflect what many people are already doing and make it just a little bit
easier.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 4, 2003 3:06 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
--- Steve
Steve Raeburn wrote:
SuccessAction does already exist in Scaffold. That version is slightly
different as it uses the Tokens constants class. I don't really see what
that would buy us, as the user would still need to know what name to enter
for the ActionForward. I wouldn't want to tie a core
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Raeburn wrote:
SuccessAction does already exist in Scaffold. That version is slightly
different as it uses the Tokens constants class. I don't really see
what
that would buy us, as the user would still need to know what name to
enter
for the
On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 06:02 PM, David Graham wrote:
Not everyone uses the terms success and failure in their apps and
hardcoding these into Struts is *not* a good idea. It's an extremely
small wheel to reinvent public static final String SUCCESS = blah;
:-).
Well, WebWork(2) defines
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 3, 2003 3:02 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions
...
I still don't see a need for a SuccessAction in the first place. Why is
it any better than using a ForwardAction?
I
then I don't want to get hung up on it,
but I think it is *marginally* better not to in this unusual case.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 3, 2003 2:07 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions
Steve Raeburn
At 19:29 -0400 8/3/03, Erik Hatcher wrote:
Having a SuccessAction makes it much easier to do
skeleton/storyboarded sites and fill in the details later.
Switching from a SuccessAction to a real action when the time is
right requires only changing the class name, not the structure of
the action
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, David Graham wrote:
Not everyone uses the terms success and failure in their apps and
hardcoding these into Struts is *not* a good idea. It's an extremely
small wheel to reinvent public static final String SUCCESS = blah; :-).
It is a small wheel to reinvent, but a time
I'd like to add two new actions to org.apache.struts.actions that I find
particularly useful.
1. SuccessAction - A simple action that forwards control to an ActionFoward
named success.
This is a very simple action, but I find it exceptionally useful,
particularly in the early stages of
I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
*custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing the number of standard
Actions in the distribution is a very good idea. It makes Struts more
accessible to newcomers, saves everyone from reimplementing the same
design, and
--- Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to add two new actions to org.apache.struts.actions that I find
particularly useful.
1. SuccessAction - A simple action that forwards control to an
ActionFoward
named success.
This is a very simple action, but I find it exceptionally
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 04:13, Vic Cekvenich wrote:
I think less actions are needed, not more.
.V
Steve Raeburn wrote:
I'd like to add two new actions to org.apache.struts.actions that I find
particularly useful.
1. SuccessAction - A simple action that forwards control to an
To the end of making it accessible to newcomers, what about making a
samples directory for actions? Maybe even forms?
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 06:19, Ted Husted wrote:
I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
*custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing the number
--- Benjamin Tomasini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To the end of making it accessible to newcomers, what about making a
samples directory for actions? Maybe even forms?
That type of thing doesn't belong in the Struts core code, it belongs in
the sample applications.
David
On Fri, 2003-08-01
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 10:21, David Graham wrote:
--- Benjamin Tomasini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To the end of making it accessible to newcomers, what about making a
samples directory for actions? Maybe even forms?
That type of thing doesn't belong in the Struts core code, it belongs in
Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to add two new actions to org.apache.struts.actions that I find
particularly useful.
1. SuccessAction - A simple action that forwards control to an
ActionFoward
named success.
This already exists, in contrib:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Steve Raeburn wrote:
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:10:59 -0700
From: Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Addition of two new actions
I'd like
Ted Husted wrote:
I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
*custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing the number of standard
Actions in the distribution is a very good idea. It makes Struts more
accessible to newcomers, saves everyone from reimplementing the
--- Rob Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
*custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing the number of standard
Actions in the distribution is a very good idea. It makes Struts more
accessible to
-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Cooper
Sent: August 1, 2003 8:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions
Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to add two new actions to org.apache.struts.actions
resolution methods into a
single class.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 1, 2003 9:01 AM
To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Steve Raeburn wrote:
Date
David Graham wrote:
--- Rob Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
*custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing the number of standard
Actions in the distribution is a very good idea. It makes
--- Rob Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Graham wrote:
--- Rob Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
*custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing the number of
standard
David Graham wrote:
--- Rob Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Graham wrote:
--- Rob Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
I use many utilities Actions like these, and the result is that fewer
*custom* Actions are needed. I think increasing
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Steve Raeburn wrote:
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:01:35 -0700
From: Steve Raeburn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
I have a few concerns with this. First, it's more work to maintain
this
new optional package with build files, tests, distribution, etc.
Second,
it's likely that the unused code would decay because Struts isn't using
it.
Since we don't currently have a struts-contrib or struts-tools
David Graham wrote:
I have a few concerns with this. First, it's more work to maintain
this
new optional package with build files, tests, distribution, etc.
Second,
it's likely that the unused code would decay because Struts isn't using
it.
Since we don't
--- Rob Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Graham wrote:
I have a few concerns with this. First, it's more work to maintain
this
new optional package with build files, tests, distribution, etc.
Second,
it's likely that the unused code would decay
: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 1, 2003 10:42 AM
To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
So, what you really want is LookupDispatchAction without requiring the
developer to create the map-related methods? I think you
To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
So, what you really want is LookupDispatchAction without requiring the
developer to create the map-related methods? I think you already get
the
abililty to combine CRUD related actions and things like
classes now and
decided on an implementation before committing anything new.
David
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 1, 2003 10:42 AM
To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
So, what
List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
So, what you really want is LookupDispatchAction without requiring the
developer to create the map-related methods? I think you already get
the
abililty to combine CRUD related actions and things like that. If so,
then implementing
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 1, 2003 1:38 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
I would prefer to add ParameterDispatchAction now and defer a decision
about
merging the three actions.
To me, that would be 'the simplest thing that could possibly work
: August 1, 2003 1:38 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
I would prefer to add ParameterDispatchAction now and defer a decision
about
merging the three actions.
To me, that would be 'the simplest thing that could possibly work' :-)
The downside to doing
Steve Raeburn wrote:
I would prefer going with simpler, specialised classes than a monolithic
DispatchAction
+1, I am infavor of the simpler classes. They are easier to understand,
maintain and modify.
but if there is a consensus to combine them then I accept
your point.
A combined action may
Steve Raeburn said:
I would prefer going with simpler, specialised classes than a monolithic
DispatchAction but if there is a consensus to combine them then I accept
your point.
A combined action may perhaps offer more flexibility. A concrete subclass
might be able to resolve the method in
79 matches
Mail list logo
