struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew Hill" <>
Subject RE: composable RequestProcessor
Date Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:14:32 GMT
Hehe. Guess this is one of those 'religious' coding convention topics ;-)
Your right about the warts in this case though, in that the other struts
interfaces dont use that convention so it would kinda stand out like a sore

Hmm. I think Im starting to loose track of the thread here!
How come we want it to be an interface again - or is it that we will have a
seperate interface for each hook in the RP and one can choose to make
classes that implement one or more at the same time, and how does this fit
in with the chaining concept for multiple hetrogenous RPs - and for certain
hooks you have the problem that the different ones in the chain can
'compete' with each other which will make it hard to come up with something
that is generic enough to allow any different RPs to just be plugged without
being 'aware' of the others.

Come to think of it, when is struts going to depend on servlet 2.3 and no
longer support 2.2? If thats slated for struts 1.2 perhaps you could ditch
the AS and RP completely and do something with filters? - though I suppose
you still want to organise things a bit more than that so the hooks are
called at the right time I guess, so the AS/RP dynamic duo would stay but
could be implemented as filters.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Robertson []
Sent: Monday, 2 June 2003 21:04
To: 'Struts Developers List'
Subject: RE: composable RequestProcessor

> From: Andrew Hill []
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 8:54 AM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: RE: composable RequestProcessor
> <snip>
> At this point, I think the main goal is to come up with a decent name
> for an interface which RequestProcessor could implement
> </snip>
> How about "IRequestProcessor"?????
> (Yeh, okay so Im of the "every interface should start with an
> 'I' or the
> writer should die!" school of thought, as well as the even
> more diabolical
> school that thinks "absabludylootly everything should be
> accessed through an
> interface". ;->)

Personally I would prefer the interface itself to have no special tag on its
name. It is the job of the implementing classes to give themselves special

If the interface is going to be what people use most of the time, it should
have a nice simple name without warts. My model for this is the Java
Collections API.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message