Sorry, nothing to point you to off the top of my head, except for the
struts-example app that ships with Struts. It illustrates the simplest usage:
<action path="/logon"
type="org.apache.struts.webapp.example.LogonAction"
name="logonForm"
scope="session"
input="logon">
<exception key="expired.password"
type="org.apache.struts.webapp.example.ExpiredPasswordException"
path="/changePassword.jsp"/>
</action>
Here, the default handler (org.apache.struts.action.ExceptionHandler) is used so
the <exception> element omits the "handler" attribute. The default handler will
take the value of the "key" attribute and use it to construct an ActionError
instance. It will also use that key to add the error instance to an ActionErrors
instance that will be stored in either request or session scope under
Globals.ERROR_KEY. The default handler will then create an ActionForward based
on the value of the "path" attribute (or it will use mapping.getInputForward()
if "path" is not provided).
Hm, that's a lot of verbage for the "simplest" case ;-)...
Quoting Ovidiu EFTIMIE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In fact, in the catch(Exception ex) branch there should be a return
> mapping.findForward("generalError"); which I didn't include in the example
> .
> But generally you're approach is better, and more appropriate.
> Do yoy have any real examples on Exception handlers, or any links to which
> you
> may point me ?
>
> Thanks,
> Ovidiu
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kris Schneider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Simulating multiple inheritance for Action and DispatchAction
>
>
> Well, what if you don't provide a handler (or a standard servlet error page)?
> An
> unhandled exception will be propogated to the container which will return a
> status code 500 to your users. I wouldn't really call the resulting generic
> "internal server error" user friendly.
>
> BTW, your code for catching Exception just prints a stacktrace, logs a
> message,
> and then falls through to return whatever "forward" has been set to
> (null?).
>
> Quoting Ovidiu EFTIMIE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > For BaseException there is not really a need to catch it in BaseAction,
> > because
> > I'll have a handler, but for Exception I don't know. Is it a good
> practice
> > to
> > declare may own handler?
> >
> > Ovidiu
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kris Schneider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: Simulating multiple inheritance for Action and
> DispatchAction
> >
> >
> > Why not just declare handlers for *both* BaseException and Exception in
> > struts-config?
> >
> > Quoting Ovidiu EFTIMIE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > I agree with you regarding the leading I ;
> > > I've implemented the setServlet method after sending the mail :)
> > > Yes you're right about GeneralImpl it must be final .
> > > I'm overiding execute just for BaseAction of course :), and I do it to
> > > catch
> > > exception that are not applicational
> > > Something like this
> > > try{
> > >
> > > forward = executeAction(....);
> > > }catch(BaseException bex){
> > > log.error(bex);
> > > //to be catched by the handlers declared in struts-config.xml
> > > throw bex
> > > }catch(Exception ex){
> > > ex.printStackTrace();
> > > log.fatal(e);
> > > }
> > > return forward;
> > >
> > > Ovidiu
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Kris Schneider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 2:13 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Simulating multiple inheritance for Action and
> > DispatchAction
> > >
> > >
> > > The general approach is probably fine, although naming interfaces with
> a
> > > leading
> > > "I" makes me gag ;-). However, this seems like a bad idea:
> > >
> > > public abstract class BaseAction extends Action implements IGeneral {
> > > private static GeneralImpl general;
> > > public BaseAction() {
> > > general = new GeneralImpl(servlet);
> > > }
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > Every time an instance of BaseAction is created, the *static* field
> > > "general"
> > > gets reset. Also, where is BaseAction getting the "servlet" arg to pass
> > to
> > > the
> > > GeneralImpl constructor? Instead, perhaps:
> > >
> > > public abstract class BaseAction extends Action implements IGeneral {
> > > private final IGeneral general;
> > > public BaseAction() {
> > > this.general = new GeneralImpl();
> > > }
> > > public void setServlet(ActionServlet servlet) {
> > > super.setServlet(servlet);
> > > this.general.setServlet(sevlet);
> > > }
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > Of course, that means adding a setServlet method to IGeneral and
> > > GeneralImpl.
> > > I'm also not sure why you'd override execute just to call
> executeAction.
> > > You
> > > certainly wouldn't want to override DispatchAction's execute method,
> > right?
> > >
> > > Quoting Ovidiu EFTIMIE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > In my application I need to have my Actions and my DispatchActions.
> > > > Each one of this actions must have the same base class in which I
> have
> > > > common
> > > > methods to both of them.
> > > > My solution is to first declare an interface IGeneral in which I'm
> > > declaring
> > > > the
> > > > common methods, then create an implementation class,GeneralImpl.Next
> > thind
> > > to
> > > > do
> > > > would be to create my base classes BaseAction and BaseDispatchAction
> > and
> > > > this
> > > > two must implement IGeneral, and in their implementation they should
> > > delegate
> > > > to
> > > > a private static member of type GeneralImpl, which will handle this
> > > > methods.
> > > > Example:
> > > > <code>
> > > > public interface IGeneral{
> > > > public Connection getConnection() throws SQLException;
> > > > ...........
> > > > public User getUser(HttpServletRequest req);
> > > > }
> > > > </code>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then I'm creating the implementation for this methods:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <code>
> > > > public class GeneralImpl implements IGeneral{
> > > > private ActionServlet servlet;
> > > > public GeneralImpl(ActionServlet srv){
> > > > servlet = srv;
> > > > }
> > > > public Connection getConnection() throws SQLException{
> > > > //code here
> > > > }
> > > > ...........
> > > > public User getUser(HttpServletRequest req){
> > > > //code here
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > </code>
> > > >
> > > > Now I create the base Actions
> > > >
> > > > <code>
> > > > public abstract class BaseAction extends Action implements
> IGeneral
> > {
> > > > private static GeneralImpl general;
> > > > public BaseAction (){
> > > > general = new GeneralImpl(servlet);
> > > > }
> > > > public ActionForward execute(ActionMapping
> > mapping,ActionForm
> > > > form,HttpServletRequest request,HttpServletResponse response){
> > > > return executeAction(ActionMapping mapping,ActionForm
> > > > form,HttpServletRequest request,HttpServletResponse response)
> > > > }
> > > > public abstract executeAction(ActionMapping
> > > mapping,ActionForm
> > > > form,HttpServletRequest request,HttpServletResponse response);
> > > > public Connection getConnection() throws SQLException{
> > > > return general.getConnection();
> > > > }
> > > > public User getUser(HttpServletRequest req){
> > > > return general.getUser(req);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > </code>
> > > > The same for the DipatchAction.
> > > >
> > > > The question is anoybody has used something like this ? It this a
> good
> > > thing
> > > > to
> > > > do it ?
> > > >
> > > > Tanks in advance and sorry if the text it's too long
> > > > Ovidiu
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kris Schneider <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > D.O.Tech <http://www.dotech.com/>
> >
> > --
> > Kris Schneider <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > D.O.Tech <http://www.dotech.com/>
>
> --
> Kris Schneider <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> D.O.Tech <http://www.dotech.com/>
--
Kris Schneider <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
D.O.Tech <http://www.dotech.com/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
