First and foremost, thank you for responding. Further comments below.
> Here is why I believe that the code is
> of interest to the Struts community:
There are many extensions of interest to the Struts community, and we
maintain a resource page to help people find them.
In practice, when an e
> Here is why I believe that the code is
> of interest to the Struts community:
There are many extensions of interest to the Struts community, and we
maintain a resource page to help people find them.
In practice, when an extension becomes very popular within the
community, and it's obvious that
Hello,
I get the distinct feeling that the committers point of view on the controller
component of Struts is quite similar to Henry Fords point of view on the color of his
cars. ...The controller component can be based on any arqitecture at all as long as
its Command Chains...
I realize that
> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> PILGRIM, Peter, FM wrote:
> > Suppose team T1 invents a generic web search engine component.
> > Let say another team T2 wanted to use that component, say
> > embed it is in own JSP views using say Tiles.
> > How does
PILGRIM, Peter, FM wrote:
Suppose team T1 invents a generic web search engine component.
Let say another team T2 wanted to use that component, say
embed it is in own JSP views using say Tiles.
How does the search component forward or transfer control to
the external component that T2.
One way cou
- Original Message -
From: "PILGRIM, Peter, FM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Struts Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 5:09 AM
Subject: RE: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
> > -Original Message--
- Original Message -
From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:37 AM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
> Jing Zhou wrote:
> > Commons-chain is not inten
Pilgram, Peter wrote:
-Original Message-
> From: Jing Zhou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "PILGRIM, Peter, FM"
> To: "'Struts Developers List'"
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 5:39 AM
PILGRIM, Peter, FM wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jing Zhou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "PILGRIM, Peter, FM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Struts Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003
> -Original Message-
> From: Jing Zhou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "PILGRIM, Peter, FM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Struts Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, October 1
Jing Zhou wrote:
Commons-chain is not intended to solve that debate topic originally.
Last year, people found when they have two RequestProcessor(s), say
A and B, if they need to design a new RequestProcessor C that has
methods from both A and B, the best they can do is to let C extend
one of them,
Joe Germuska wrote:
> Speaking of chains, given Ted's suggestion about just plugging in
> another Action class as part of the ForwardConfig -- if that were to
> be the case, I think I'd just be more interested in a
> Commons-Chain/Struts-Chain solution -- which might be better anyway,
> as it's mor
- Original Message -
From: "PILGRIM, Peter, FM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Struts Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 5:39 AM
Subject: RE: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
> *Question of Architecture*
>
PILGRIM, Peter, FM wrote:
Does this mean that we have solved the hideous Action Chaining debate?
In theory an Struts Action could be refactored to be a type of
``Command'' and therefor Actions could be chained.
I think the Chain package will make it easier for people to do the Right
Thing. The Ac
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 06 October 2003 17:25
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
>
>
> Paul Speed wrote:
>
> >I haven't looked at the implementatio
> >I could be convinced if I see a possible mechanism that deals with
> >the command coupling problem and state storage problem.
> >
> >
> Jing, it is sounding more and more like what you want is a scripting
> control flow language expressed in XML. That is absolutely, totally,
> *not* what co
Jing Zhou wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
You do not need to determ
> In the example, the L1 labeled chain is invoked by Class1 if it returns
> false.
Sorry, it should be changed to "if it returns true" (to terminate the
original
chain instance).
Jing
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
> >
> >You do not need to determine
Jing Zhou wrote:
It's not so much about "complexity" as it is readability.
The "complexity" in my message refers to the verboseness of the
chain-config.xml file. What I am looking for is a possible
simpler syntax to do the job.
If I care what Process Action is then I can see the detail. G
> It's not so much about "complexity" as it is readability.
The "complexity" in my message refers to the verboseness of the
chain-config.xml file. What I am looking for is a possible
simpler syntax to do the job.
> If I care what Process Action is then I can see the detail. Goto's
> were deemed
Edgar P Dollin wrote:
Not that I am an expert, nor is this the Command Chain a major issue for me,
but logic in configuration files (xml) is like writing LISP. For some it is
a rare beauty, for others it foggy at best.
It's different from LISP in one important respect, though ... no
parenthes
Ted Husted wrote:
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
* The way it's currently implemented -- ValidateActionForm
conditionally branches to a separate chain on validation
failure ("servlet-validation-failure" in the current config file),
and [returns true to] abandon the remainder of the original chain.
t: Monday, October 06, 2003 7:57 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
>
>
>
>
> Jing Zhou wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Paul Speed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Str
Craig R. McClanahan wrote (10/4/2003 2:02 PM):
So, implementing this as a single chain would require ValidateActionForm
to the success/failure state of the validation into the Context -- easy
to do -- and three commands must now (inside their implementation -- the
Chain does not know anything ab
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
* The way it's currently implemented -- ValidateActionForm
conditionally branches to a separate chain on validation
failure ("servlet-validation-failure" in the current config file),
and [returns true to] abandon the remainder of the original chain.
The phrase "conditi
- Original Message -
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
> I actually think this is better, because you
Jing Zhou wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul Speed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 5:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
>
&g
Jing Zhou wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
Looks like you are as
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Speed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
>
>
> Jing Zhou wrote:
> >
> &g
- Original Message -
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
> >
> >Looks lik
Jing Zhou wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul Speed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
>
>
ept that it doesn't do the right thing in case of validation failures
(i.e. look at the "input" parameter).
-Paul
Craig
Jing Zhou wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROT
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Speed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:40 AM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
>
> (1) LookupCommand
> (2) ExceptionCatche
Jing Zhou wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
Jing Zhou wrote:
For me, "
Original Message -
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
They could indeed be made part of the chain,
s
> clearer to me.
>
> -Paul
>
> Jing Zhou wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, Octo
L PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 1:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
>
> >
> > They could indeed be made part of the chain, and "checking the current
> > s
- Original Message -
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
>
> They could indeed be made part o
- Original Message -
From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
> Jing Zhou wrote:
> > For me, "Simple th
Hello,
You may have noticed the posts concerning the request for comments on Action Wrappers
which appeared in Aug and a couple of days ago. Action wrappers work with the existing
RequestProcessor (1.1) but a much cleaner solution involves a (currently) minor
refactoring of the RequestProcesso
Ted Husted wrote:
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
In terms of the chain implementation of the request processing
lifecycle, this is just an unconditional command in the chain (it's
implemented in o.a.s.c.servlet.PerformForward). No skipping or
stepping is requried. See
contrib/struts-chain/src/
Jing Zhou wrote:
For me, "Simple thing should be simple" is the
top rule that supersedes any programming practices.
Some of might say that this *is* a programming practice. Some might also
couch it as start with "the simplest thing that can possibly work", and
then let practice be your guide.
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
In terms of the chain implementation of the request processing
lifecycle, this is just an unconditional command in the chain (it's
implemented in o.a.s.c.servlet.PerformForward). No skipping or stepping
is requried. See
contrib/struts-chain/src/conf/chain-config.xm
- Original Message -
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Struts-chain Behavior Discussion
> Jing Zhou wrote:
>
> >It looks
Jing Zhou wrote:
It looks to me that I threw a disturbing idea. Now I change
the subject for more discussions of different opinions.
Craig mentioned the "go to" statement in programming
languages and hinted it could be an evil if Chain implement
the semantics of "go to" (I just called it "jump beh
Here, I would refer you to commons 'functor' which contains all manner of
classes for implementing logic in terms of object instances.
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 3:57 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: St
Jing Zhou wrote:
> * I studied several workflow engines (not page flow stuff, they
> manage persisted workload for people) They all implement,
> one way or another, the "jump behavior". I could not see
> they violate the OO design principles as high level
> regulators.
I believe Chain is su
48 matches
Mail list logo
