Toby Hede wrote:
> Can you clarify what you mean by: 'having one action internally delegate
> to the chain of actions that you want to execute'.
Have one action which in doExecute does something like:
Action1 action1 = (Action1)ActionFactory.getAction(Action1.class);
action1.setA(b);
action1.e
I think I have sorted my parameter issues, and because this is probably
documented somewhere I feel reather silly. My class variables where all
declared public so the parameters were being set directly into the variables
themselves, Bypassing my getter methods. A bit weird, but declaring them
OK, validation is not currently occuring except in doExecute...at least that
is by design rather than by my confusion.
I read between the lines when I saw the isCommand() method...
The parameters are weird.
I have extended ActionSupport and implemented CommandDriven, SessionAware
and Paramete
>
>Well, that's not true. You can call "isCommand()" to determine
>which command is being invoked.
>
Hmm... this must me something new, as this was not in there originally. This
being the case, I see no problem in automatically calling validate from
execute in all cases (cda/non cda).
>
>>I ha
Could someone please send me a zip of the current cvs.
I do not have external cvs access. I have a couple of upgrades to
the webtable I'd like to add and maybe some documentation but would
really like to compare it to the current cvs.
I'd be more than happy to buy you a beer if you are ever i
+1
>
> I have recently done integration with formproc. Amazingly it's just one
> class and requires no changes to WW. I'll commit tonight if you guys like
> the idea.
>
> /V
>
>
>
> _
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile
Victor Salaman wrote:
>> The current code only calls validation if no command is set. Hm.. maybe
>> this should be changed... what do ya'll think?
>
> -1 ... Each command could require different validations, and given the
> fact that you can't call something like getCommand, there would no way
>
>
>The current code only calls validation if no command is set. Hm.. maybe
>this should be changed... what do ya'll think?
>
>
-1 ... Each command could require different validations, and given the fact
that you can't call something like getCommand, there would no way to detect
from where are
Then, +1. Go ahead.
> -Original Message-
> From: Rickard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:30 AM
> To: Kjetil Paulsen
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Webwork-user] command driven actions
>
>
> Kjetil Paulsen wrote:
>
> >>The current code only call
Kjetil Paulsen wrote:
>>The current code only calls validation if no command is set.
>>Hm.. maybe
>>this should be changed... what do ya'll think?
>
> Is there a reason not to?
Well, if the validation is specific to doExecute() it's bad. But, since
we now have "isCommand()" it should be poss
> The current code only calls validation if no command is set.
> Hm.. maybe
> this should be changed... what do ya'll think?
Is there a reason not to?
/kjeilhp
___
Webwork-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listi
Toby Hede wrote:
> I have a couple of queries about command driven actions.
>
> My commands are working fine, I implement CommandDriven, but I am
> finding a couple of things:
> - parameters are not being set
Hm.. they should be... strange..
> - validation is not occurring
The current cod
12 matches
Mail list logo
