Mailing-List: contact dev-help@struts.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=hOfLp6i4UI31ISAop6xZdBFZZlBnaHZvxqs67sOAJRJu1iEwKwXWQUQ/DYzeb21e4ufviXhpRLcGppVa6aA38537tAknQVvjFIEqxVtXICVThPK+yz38OD+r7a/p72yNfwNZpBkDrYwY363Gfw7CDnxw5X0UflMOPTg5GPBI9jI=
  ;
Message-ID: <20060214233208.1417.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:32:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Benedict <paul4christ79@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
To: Struts Developers List <dev@struts.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <96734F55-5033-4478-884F-38F79B4F8968@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1118471726-1139959928=:1106"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

--0-1118471726-1139959928=:1106
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

All,
  
  I have some concerns about the Struts 1.3 branch.
  
  First, I noticed the 1.3 API docs are built using Java 5. Is 1.3 Java 5  compliant? I didn't think this was the case so please make sure those  are being built with the right compiler. If you go to this link, you  will notice the Map interface is using the Java 5 templates:  http://struts.apache.org/struts-action/apidocs/org/apache/struts/chain/contexts/ActionContext.html
  
  Second, please do some further thinking about the name ActionContext. I  just got my WebWork book and am reading it, and I have some preliminary  ideas how we can wrap the 1.x branch to use POJO Action classes that do  not require an interface or subclass. But this would of course require  the ActionContext to be passed in so all the necessary input and output  data can be used.
  
  But I noticed the ActionContext is mainly for the request processor and  looks like it contains TOO much data that would never be exposed to an  action class to use. I understand this. But WebWork has an  ActionContext class too and I think it would be very smart of us to  rename the current ActionContext class to something like  InternalActionContext so we do not use up this name. For once we  release in 1.3, the name is pretty much stuck. 
  
  I recommend we reserve "ActionContext" for the future, to contain the  context we would actually want to expose to a future Action  implementation.
  
  Paul

		
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
--0-1118471726-1139959928=:1106--