So here are comments:
- I like IoC idea! I prefer Nano, Hivemind or something else Jakarta
based. I have been using HiveMind on projects and it is very nice.
- I do not like any kind of factory. It's harder to teach and maintain
then just new(). Factory and pool had it's place in JDK 1.3, but a
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Vic Cekvenich wrote:
So here are comments:
- I like IoC idea! I prefer Nano, Hivemind or something else Jakarta
based. I have been using HiveMind on projects and it is very nice.
Exactly my point. Abstracting object creating into a factory would allow
you to create a
Off the top of my head (meaning I haven't thought through all of the
possible ramifications yet ;), I like this idea. I know that when I added
factories to Commons FileUpload, it took the ability to customise things
to a level that just isn't possible with straight 'new' coding. I can see
how the
Don Brown wrote:
It would take probably a few hours
to code so little effort is wasted when the struts-chain move takes
place.
I think that is the key at the end of the day. I think it be more
effective the few hours be spent on integrating IoC into
struts-chain but I do not need to
Yeah, I wasn't sure what to call them either. I think it would be nice to
have one that will create the form from the config, no matter what type it
is, but still have others that create the specific type. This is mostly
useful for testing as it makes it easy to create dynaforms, a feature I've
At 10:44 AM -1000 1/2/04, Don Brown wrote:
What if we extracted the creation of Actions and ActionForms (including
DynaActionForms) into an ActionFactory, overridable by the user?
In general, I'm in favor. I disagree with Vic's assertion,
paraphrased factories are too complicated; it's good
IMHO, if we were writing Struts today, then this definitely would have been a factory
in the first place. So making it a factory now seems reasonable, so long as someone is
willing to do the work :)
My one concern is the ActionServlet reference in the signature. I don't feel good
about adding
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
snip /
My one concern is the ActionServlet reference in the signature. I don't
feel good about adding any more http dependencies to interfaces we may
have to live with for some time. But it may be unavoidable, and when we
do start encapsulating http, this
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:42:48 -1000 (HST), Don Brown wrote:
Ok, sounds good. I'll create a bugzilla entry and post the patches
there.
Speaking of factories ...
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13638
-T.
-
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:42:48 -1000 (HST), Don Brown wrote:
Ok, sounds good. I'll create a bugzilla entry and post the patches
there.
Here's an old one that you could use:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23583
-T.
Quoting Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What if we extracted the creation of Actions and ActionForms (including
DynaActionForms) into an ActionFactory, overridable by the user?
The idea of factories for all Struts objects is an appealing one (I don't buy
the too hard to teach assertion either
Vic Cekvenich wrote:
Don Brown wrote:
It would take probably a few hours
to code so little effort is wasted when the struts-chain move takes
place.
I think that is the key at the end of the day. I think it be more
effective the few hours be spent on integrating IoC into struts-chain
Yes,
12 matches
Mail list logo
