struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hubert Rabago <>
Subject Re: Page Preparation [was Re: POJO Actions and the ActionCommand interface]
Date Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:30:26 GMT
To me, Joe's ExecuteForwardCommand, coupled with the catalog/command
attributes for action mappings, already do what Frank's setupItem aims
to do.  Per-forward prep can be done with per-forward commands or
chains, and there are per-action equivalents as well.


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:07:42 -0000, Niall Pemberton
<> wrote:
> I haven't looked at your actual implementation, but my gut feel is that we
> need to be careful about adding new elements to the struts-config.xml - the
> simpler the better IMO. Maybe there are alternative mechanisms that achieve
> the same goal. Martin suggested ChainAction in that thread (for Struts
> 1.3) - another, Struts 1.2, option would be to use a Tiles Controller.
> At the end of the day its a bit chicken and egg as far as contributions and
> committers go. If you post an idea, people say "code talks" - if you go to
> the trouble of doing the code (as you did), its disheartening to get either
> no reaction or a -ve one. Its a bit hit and miss whether you're going to
> find anyone with either the desire or time to plug in what you produce (I've
> had very little over the last few months). Back porting to 1.2 is more
> effort so the same goes. Personally, once I switch over to 1.3 the
> motivation for me to duplicate work on 1.2 will not be that high. By far the
> largest part of the effort (IMO) is not sticking the code/patches in, its
> testing and (probably, coz I haven't done it) actually going through the
> release process.
> Niall
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:16 PM
> > That kind of begs the question... if I were to implement what I did in
> > 1.3, would there then be interest from the committers?  I think there was
> > a reasonable amount of interest expressed by the user community for what I
> > did, and if its just a matter of porting it to 1.3, then there is an
> > opening here for me.  And assuming that was the case, would there then
> > still be a problem adding it to 1.2?  If there was going to be no
> > compatibility issue between 1.2 and 1.3, would there still be resistance
> > to adding it to 1.2 as well as 1.3?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message