Your Actions *can* be POJOs... they also *can* implement certain interfaces, and they *can* extend certain base classes... implementing the interfaces or extending the base classes gives your Actions certain inherent abilities, or marks them as being usable by the framework in certain ways it otherwise wouldn't know it could. When you read that WW/S2 Actions are POJOs, that's true, but to be more accurate it should say they *can* be POJOs... unlike in S1 where you had to extend Action, that is no longer required, but you'll give up some things if you don't, or if you don't extend some interfaces.
Frank -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com AIM/Yahoo: fzammetti MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology" (2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1) and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects" (2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4) Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it! On Thu, May 10, 2007 4:01 pm, Rick Schumeyer wrote: > It's quite possible I'm confused, but I thought that actions in S2 were > now POJOs. In Webwork in Action, for example, we see: > > public class HelloWorld implements Action > > but in the blank application we see > > public class ExampleSupport extends ActionSupport > > Is this an example where Webwork in Action is out-of-date, or can you > still do something like that with S2? If so, is there a reason why I > *would not* want to use POJOs with an Action interface? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
