On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:05:08 -0800 (PST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, January 24, 2005 12:37 pm, Gianpiero Caretti said:
> > FYI, that's exactly what I am doing rigth now!
>
> Great minds think alike :)
>
> > The only think I don't like with this solution is that the JSP writer has
> > to
> > know the existence of the "command" attribute into request. Moreover if
> > the
> > Action writer forgot to call the "setup" method the request attribute will
> > not
> > set.
>
> True enough, but at some point you have to trust those under you. So long as
> you make this information known, you have to trust that they will use it.
If they remember, don't get in a hurry or otherwise do something human.
Why not do something like
private static blah execute(blah) throws Exception {
criticalSetupstuff;
continueExecute(blah);
}
protected blah continueExecute(bladh) throws Exception {
whatever the execute should do.
}
That way you can gurantee that anyone inheriting from this action will
get the crttical setup stuff.
>
> --
> Frank W. Zammetti
> Founder and Chief Software Architect
> Omnytex Technologies
> http://www.omnytex.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]
