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. 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]
