On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 22:39, Matthew J. Feifarek wrote:
> I love the actions stuff in WebKit; and I think that EVERY transaction
> should really have an action; basically, each transaction is calling a
> method of an object. Why should the "writeHTML" be any different?
I myself never use actions, though kind of for this reason -- I have a
hard time arranging the logic when actions are sometimes called, and
sometimes not. My solution has been not to use actions at all.
> This really started to seem obvious to me as I worked on security checks
> for a "UserAccountKit" that we're working with, and had to do all the
> security checks twice: once for actions, and once in the writeHTML tree
> of methods.
BTW, I've been using an alternate Page-like servlet structure (which I
haven't put in CVS or anything -- but maybe I should put it in
Experimental). Anyway, it makes much more significant use of
exceptions. I have a feeling it would simplify what you are doing,
since at any point you could raise a Forbidden exception. In general
I've found that cleaner than doing security through if statements.
> I would support an architectural change that made EVERY transaction an
> action... it would be great; we'd get preAction(), postAction() and the
> main action() for every transaction; which among other things would
> allow us to leave awake() and sleep() for the WebKit internals (or
> superclass internals). If the default action just called an output
> method, so be it.
Do you mean that, if no explicit _action_ was given, you'd do something
like handleAction('default') (and skip writeHTML entirely, but the
default action would call writeHTML by default)?
Ian
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Webware-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
