Re: New Request Processor System [was Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor]

2003-07-13 Thread Peter A. Pilgrim
David Graham wrote: As one of those contributors to the whole "Composable Request Processor" a while ago, is there chance that we will get hint to what the Request Processor system look likes? I haven't seen it yet but I hear it's based on the GoF Chain of Responsibility pattern and will be a com

Re: New Request Processor System [was Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor]

2003-07-13 Thread David Graham
> As one of those contributors to the whole "Composable Request Processor" > a while ago, is there chance that we will get hint to what the > Request Processor system look likes? I haven't seen it yet but I hear it's based on the GoF Chain of Responsibility pattern and will be a commons component,

New Request Processor System [was Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor]

2003-07-13 Thread Peter A. Pilgrim
David Graham wrote: There is some movement towards separating Struts from the Servlet API so that it may be used in by the upcoming Portlets API. Craig is implementing a new RequestProcessor system that accomodates that and I would hate to move things in the opposite direction by tying ActionForms

RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor

2003-07-10 Thread David Graham
There is some movement towards separating Struts from the Servlet API so that it may be used in by the upcoming Portlets API. Craig is implementing a new RequestProcessor system that accomodates that and I would hate to move things in the opposite direction by tying ActionForms even more to HttpSe

RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor

2003-07-10 Thread Kurt Post
Sounds like a good idea. Thanks -Original Message- From: Butler, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:25 PM To: 'Struts Developers List ' Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor

RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor

2003-07-10 Thread Butler, Jeff
truts Developers List Sent: 7/10/03 4:05 PM Subject: RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor I wasn't intending that the request object be kept around. Isn't it true that even if an ActionForm object is kept in the session scope, i

RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor

2003-07-10 Thread Kurt Post
I wasn't intending that the request object be kept around. Isn't it true that even if an ActionForm object is kept in the session scope, it is created in response to a HTTP request? The idea is to simply use the ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest that caused the ActionForm object to be create