I would prefer going with simpler, specialised classes than a monolithic
DispatchAction but if there is a consensus to combine them then I accept
your point.
A combined action may perhaps offer more flexibility. A concrete subclass
might be able to resolve the method in different ways depending on what was
present at runtime. (request parameter, parameter, key).
However, I'm not sure that flexibility justifies the increased complexity of
the class or of understanding how to use it. Potential areas for user
confusion would be misunderstanding the order of preference for resolving
the method names or not recognizing conflicts that could arise between them.
Also, what happens if we need to resolve by other means? Add more weight to
the super class or add another specialized sub class?
To summarize:
- I think we definitely need the functionality that
ParameterDispatchAction offers.
- If the actions are combined, the result needs to be just as extensible
and easy to understand as keeping them separate.
- I would rather not combine them, but I'm open to ideas that satisfy
the previous two points.
Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 1, 2003 1:38 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
>
>
> > I would prefer to add ParameterDispatchAction now and defer a decision
> > about
> > merging the three actions.
> > To me, that would be 'the simplest thing that could possibly work' :-)
>
> The downside to doing that is if we decide to combine them we have to go
> through the deprecation phase, document the changes, and explain it to
> confused users. I'd prefer it if we took a look at all 3 classes now and
> decided on an implementation before committing anything new.
>
> David
>
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: August 1, 2003 10:42 AM
> > > To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions
> > >
> > >
> > > So, what you really want is LookupDispatchAction without requiring the
> > > developer to create the map-related methods? I think you already get
> > the
> > > abililty to combine CRUD related actions and things like that. If so,
> > > then implementing a default getKeyMethodMap() in LookupDispatchAction
> > > might accomplish the same goal, without requiring another action.
> > Such a
> > > default implementation could examine the current LookupDispatchAction
> > > subclass and create the mapping information automatically.
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong ... I like the idea behind what you're proposing.
> > I
> > > just think we might already have it (with the potential to improve
> > ease of
> > > use by not forcing people to implement getKeyMethodMap() for a common
> > use
> > > case).
> > >
> > >
> > > Craig
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
