struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Don Brown <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] ActionFactory refactoring
Date Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:42:48 GMT
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
<snip />
> My one concern is the ActionServlet reference in the signature. I don't
> feel good about adding any more http dependencies to interfaces we may
> have to live with for some time. But it may be unavoidable, and when we
> do start encapsulating http, this whole she-bang might be encapsulated
> as well.

I agree, however, when we do write Servlets out of Struts, I think
everything will need to be rewritten, including this factory and the
objects it creates.  Since this is more of an internal refactoring than a
new feature, I think we don't have to be as concerned about
backward-compatibility, especially since writing Servlets out of Struts
will break everything anyways. (of course by "writing Servlets out of
Struts" I mean removing Servlet dependencies in Struts)

> If you can do it over the weekend, and post a patch that people could
> review first, and you felt confident in the code, I would say that it
> could still make the 1.2.0 cut. I feel strongly that we need to address
> the remaining problem reports regarding pagePattern et cetera. I'm
> actively working  on the module examples application now, but the
> application and the fixes aren't going to happen before Monday.
> Of course, an equally reasonable opinion would be to hold the patch for
> after the 1.2.0 roll, so that it can live in the nightly build for
> awhile. But it seems like a fairly straight-forward matter to me, and
> should either work or not.

Ok, sounds good.  I'll create a bugzilla entry and post the patches there.


> -Ted.
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 12:17:16 -1000 (HST), Don Brown wrote:
> > Yeah, I wasn't sure what to call them either.  I think it would be
> > nice to have one that will create the form from the config, no
> > matter what type it is, but still have others that create the
> > specific type.  This is mostly useful for testing as it makes it
> > easy to create dynaforms, a feature I've been hearing a lot.  Of
> > course, it could just be two methods, and if you just wanted a
> > dynaform, create a FormBeanConfig and set dynamic to true.
> >
> > As for when, it doesn't matter.  I could easily put it in over the
> > weekend, code and tests, but if we are trying to get 1.2 out the
> > door, it can wait.
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Martin Cooper wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Off the top of my head (meaning I haven't thought through all of
> >> the possible ramifications yet ;), I like this idea. I know that
> >> when I added factories to Commons FileUpload, it took the ability
> >> to customise things to a level that just isn't possible with
> >> straight 'new' coding. I can see how the same would be true for
> >> Actions as well.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure about the specific API you suggest. I assume by
> >> "default" you mean the non-dyna flavour? Something about the API
> >> doesn't "feel" right, but I'll try to give it some thought later
> >> and see if I can come up with anything better.
> >>
> >> BTW, I assume you're proposing this as a post-1.2.0 change?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Martin Cooper
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message