--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My only concern would be using the term "context" to imply more than one > > object. > > IMHO, there should be a functional non-httpd framework below Struts, > that would provide things like a Context Object, which would be a > generic version of the HttpRequest. At the Stuts level, you could then > have available to you signatures that used a Context or a HttpContext. > > In the future, we should be able to write pure business Actions that > don't use http semantics, and only use the http version when we > absolutely need to. In practice, most of us rarely use the http services > > of the HttpRequest, and the same Actions could be coded using a generic > Context (that might be chained to the HttpRequest, as is done with the > Velocity Tools). > > [We started along this way with duel Action classes, but I've never even > > tried to use the non-http one.] > > So, if we're talking about the ActionContext interface being an > abstraction of the Action class, I'd like to search for another name.
No, I was thinking Actions would be passed an ActionContext in their execute() method similar to how Servlets know about a ServletContext. The ActionContext would contain the HttpServletRequest, form bean, etc. and would serve to keep the API stable while allowing flexibility in what the ActionContext actually contained. David > My > > suggestion for an Action class interface would be > > Action <- HttpDispatcher. > > As for the other core classes, I would suggest > > ActionForward <- HttpResource > > ActionMapping <- HttpCommand > > or, if you prefer, > > Action <- WebDispatcher > > ActionForward <- WebResource > > ActionMapping <- WebCommand > > Since, I'm lead to understand Craig finds "http" hard to say when he > gives talks =:) > > -Ted. > > > David Graham wrote: > > > --- Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Just a little "me-too" here, but I think both Ted and David have good > >>points. Ted's approach to adding a controller to the ActionForward > >>is a relatively small change to the infrastructure that can offer a > >>lot of gain. And I've been interested in seeing some kind of > >>ActionContext class for quite a while now. > > > > > > I chose my words carefully when I said "ActionContext interface". I > > *think* we can all agree that if we added this it should be an > interface > > :-). > > > > David > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
