Mailing-List: contact struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <struts-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
From: "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws>
To: "Struts Developers List" <struts-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: RE: composable RequestProcessor
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:00:44 -0600
Message-ID: <MCEFJGLDHNNMPENCIDECCEBKFLAA.mail@phase.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <Law15-F686D0kvexV9n00072131@hotmail.com>

If we use Filters in lieu of the RP wouldn't that require that we move the
ActionServlet to a filter as well? Where does the ActionServlet fit in to
this?

Brandon Goodin

-----Original Message-----
From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:44 AM
To: struts-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: composable RequestProcessor


>David Graham wrote:
>>Why should we duplicate the effort of the container inside Struts?
>
>We often duplicate the effort of the container. Actions duplicate servlets.
>Modules duplicate multiple applications.
>
>In each of these cases, the effect of the container feature is the same,
>but the justification has always been "it more lightweight".

In this case it's more heavyweight.  We would have to alter the DTD,
transform the new DTD elements to objects, code up the chaining mechanism,
write unit tests, and deal with the bugs.

Adding a RequestHandler interface is *much* simpler and acheives the desired
results (if not in the xml configuration manner some would prefer).  It
doesn't make sense to me, to disregard all the work that containers have put
into Filters and write our own.

Even after implementing our own approach we would have to spend time
supporting and modifying it.  This especially seems like a waste of time
given there's already a standard solution out there.

This reminds me of modules where they sounded like a great idea and then
there's nobody to support the bugs.

David

>
>*If someone wanted to write it*, I don't see that a composable request
>processor would have to be a 2.x change. The major changes could all take
>place within the process method, and the original RequestProcessor could
>remain available.
>
>Things like the DTD may have to be expanded, but it would not be anything
>more radical than what we did between 1.0 and 1.1. [As if that's a good
>justification for anything =:0)]
>
>-Ted.
>
>
>--
>Ted Husted,
>Struts in Action <http://husted.com/struts/book.html>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org