struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Don Brown <>
Subject Re: [Struts Ti] XWork?
Date Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:07:17 GMT
Sure, a custom ActionInvocation instance could even invoke a Struts Action as is.  The question
is how you handle 
ActionForms.  Do you implement the Struts request processing chain as Interceptors?  Add an
Interceptor that calls a 
chain?  Action 2 already has the DefaultWorkflowInterceptor which defines the basic validation
workflow, so it would be 
easy to create one that implemented a Struts 1.x workflow.

Again, we've kinda started down this path in the sandbox.  Take a look at that code and see
if you can find anything 
that might be helpful.  This is exactly the type of migration library we had in mind for our
first release, so your help 
will be big.


Eric Molitor wrote:
> Well what I've been toying with is two things the first isn't directly
> related but might be of interest.
> At the SpringExperience there were some discussions about integrating
> SpringWebflow into webwork and I started playing with some code. What I
> ended up with was a weird WebFlowAction that could (semi) invoke a webflow.
> It was far form perfect and I eventually lost interest. A week or so ago I
> took the same idea and started writing a StrutsAction Action. Basically the
> action just invokes the execute method of the struts action using
> ServletActionContext.getResponse() and ServletActionContext.getRequest() to
> supply the necessary parameters. There is a getActionForward() method for
> getting the Struts Action result and the return is hardcoded to "SUCCESS".
> I don't know how valid this is but I've been able to execute some synthetic
> tests with positive results. The next bit I was planning on trying was using
> reflection to invoke all the getter methods on the Struts Action and then
> manually pushing them onto the stack. My reasoning for doing all of this was
> to provide a way to invoke StrutsActions within an unmodified WebWork 2.2.
> Now back to what you really asked for, any pojo is an action, why not just
> write a custom dispatcher for invoking legacy Struts Actions and maybe
> create a new execute method such as...
> Public String execute(ActionMapping mapping, ActionForm form)
> I probably should just start coding some of this up for people to look at as
> I communicate much better that way. After rereading the email I don't think
> I've clarified anything. But hey I'll send it anyway and try to get on the
> WebWork chat server later to try to explain it a bit more logically.
> - Eric
> On 3/30/06, Don Brown <> wrote:
>> On what framework would this solution you are describing run?  Are you
>> talking about running Struts 1.x actions inside
>> Action 2?  If so, that is something that has been started in the sandbox,
>> but not fully developed.  I'd like to hear more.
>> Don
>> Eric Molitor wrote:
>>> This may be a dumb suggestion but why not implement a lightweight action
>>> class that's in StrutsAction and then if a user chooses they can use the
>>> full support of XWork. I'm not sure where you draw the line (you'd
>> probably
>>> want validation) but I cant see why you couldn't implement a few of the
>>> interfaces. This kind of goes along with the POJO support for actions in
>> WW
>>> 2.2
>>> - Eric
>>> On 3/29/06, Don Brown <> wrote:
>>>> To add to that, Patrick and I were collaborating on "phase 2" type
>>>> features before we even thought of merging projects.  After that
>>>> brainstorming session, I started talking to Patrick about one of the
>>>> ideas that came out of the conversion, like devMode, and Patrick
>>>> implemented it in WebWork.  He also went on to create QuickStart, which
>>>> allows you to quickly prototype applications without a complication
>>>> step.  These were the types of ideas we were wanting to explore in Ti -
>>>> ways to make the job easier for the developer.
>>>> Don
>>>> Ted Husted wrote:
>>>>> I think we're all still working off the original proposal.
>>>>> *
>>>>> Don is simply referring to "phase 2", while most of us are still
>>>>> focused on "phase 1".
>>>>> -Ted.
>>>>> On 3/30/06, Frank W. Zammetti <> wrote:
>>>>>> Don, I think this is totally at odds with a lot of the things I've
>> been
>>>>>> reading lately.  Granted its been hard to separate the facts from
>>>>>> noise lately (through no fault of anyone involved with the merger),
>> but
>>>>>> even still...
>>>>>> Can I make a suggestion?  Certainly for the sake of the users in
>>>>>> communities, but also to be sure those doing the work are all on
>>>>>> same page, I think it would be a good idea for someone to write up
>> what
>>>>>> the plan actually is, and make sure everyone is on board with
>>>> it.  Maybe
>>>>>> I'm speaking out of turn and such a thing already exists, but I
>> really
>>>>>> believe a lot of people are thinking this is just a Webwork
>> rebranding,
>>>>>> with some additions taken from Struts, and if that isn't the case
>>>>>> think it would be prudent to have a document than anyone can point
>>>>>> and say "that's what we're doing, that's the plan!".
>>>>>> Frank
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message