On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Eddie Bush wrote:
> :-) Precisely. Everyone should certainly be aware of the possible > side-effects of chaining via a forward though. Assuming you realize the > possible problem there, and avoid it, you're fine AFAICT. If someone > has reason why this sort of chaining (the redirect type - not the > forward) is bad, I'd sure love to hear it ... but I'll probably wind up > using it anyway ;-O Here are a couple: 1) Performance - every "chain" requires a round trip through the browser, which increases network traffic and decreases response time for the user. 2) Request attributes are lost, so you have to persist everything you need, either in the session or as hidden fields in the form, both of which have their own sets of issues. -- Martin Cooper > > Edgar P. Dollin wrote: > > >My viewpoints are a little more simplistic. > > > >There is a lot of gray area between the definition of presentation layer > >and business logic. There has to be some impact or you couldn't drive > >the business layer from the presentation layer. > > > >We do the best we can to minimize the impact of one upon the other. If > >something is clear, i.e. the shape of the buttons is presentation layer, > >the layout of the tables is business layer, you put it in the correct > >space. If something is gray, i.e. frobnicatation, you understand it the > >best you can and break it up in a logical way. > > > >Lastly you use the tools available, with action chaining being one of > >the tools, to implement your analysis. If your analysis works best with > >action chaining, you are a winner, if it works without it, great too. > > > >Edgar :-) > > > > -- > Eddie Bush > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
