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 (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: 
 <28670.170.201.180.136.1172008970.squirrel@webmail.chiron.lunarpages.com>
In-Reply-To: <1db115340702201354w7f4f1bd3o1c2aff3d21bc1239@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1db115340702201342k42e896b8j85f5d2c412568db0@mail.gmail.com>
    <1db115340702201354w7f4f1bd3o1c2aff3d21bc1239@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:02:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Action, dispatch, etc.
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <fzlists@omnytex.com>
To: "Michael Jouravlev" <jmikus@gmail.com>,
 dev@struts.apache.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Importance: Normal

On Tue, February 20, 2007 4:54 pm, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
> Oh, and by the way while we are on the s2 topic: combining action +
> form in one class which reinstantiates every request is a pretty
> stupid thing if you ask me and is much farther from original Struts
> session-scoped-by-default ActionForm than my subtle :) changes to
> Action.

I'm not sure what exactly this has to do with anything Michael.  I can
only assume your referring to me having made that suggestion in the past,
and yeah, you'd probably be right to make the comparison, but here's the
very important difference: I'm not a committer.  I can't go off and do
what I want with the code that everyone else is (generally speaking) going
to use.  You can.  Therefore, it's not at all unreasonable for me to ask
the questions I've asked in my estimation.

Frank

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michael Jouravlev <jmikus@gmail.com>
> Date: Feb 20, 2007 1:42 PM
> Subject: Action, dispatch, etc.
> To: "Frank W. Zammetti" <fzlists@omnytex.com>
>
>
> Hi Frank, I've taken this discussion offline if you don't mind, but if
> you like we can bring ig back to the list. We had this argument
> before, my reasons are the same.
>
> With current shift from s1 to s2 Paul and me are free (well, not
> completely, but we have more leeway) to implement features we like,
> features we always wanted but could not add to the core because of
> resistance of several core committers.
>
> Whether s1 will stay viable after 1.4 release or not I want to make
> changes I always wanted, and now I can do this being a committer :-)
>
> My changes do not break backward compatibility so I don't see why you
> or anyone else should be worried. If 1.4 won't be used in the field
> then why would one care about its features?
>
> On 2/20/07, Frank W. Zammetti (JIRA) <jira@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>     [
>> https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2940?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_40222
>> ]
>>
>> Frank W. Zammetti commented on STR-2940:
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> I'm not arguing what your trying to do... I'm simply asking two
>> intermingled questions here:
>>
>> Why does what your trying to do have to involve modifying Action?  Why
>> isn't simply creating a new kind of Action sufficient?
>>
>> I imagine that when DispatchAction was first introduced, a similar
>> question was asked... why not just add dispatching functionality to
>> Action and be done with it?  Well, somewhere along the line, someone
>> decided a second kind of Action was the better answer.  I'm asking the
>> same question here, not debating whether what your proposing is a good
>> idea or not.  It seems to me, if it's a new descendant of Action, then
>> that question is moot anyway.
>>
>> If your only goal is to push a new mindset on people, which frankly
>> seems to be the case based on what you said in the previous comment, I
>> would contend that's not the right reason to do this, considering the
>> tremendous number of existing Struts apps that have to be maintained.
>>
>> A related piont, although one I hesitate to make frankly... One could
>> certainly make the argument that S1 is quickly becoming legacy given the
>> advent of S2, and in that frame of mind, I don't think major
>> architectural changes (which this is, whether developers are forced to
>> deal with it or not) should be undertaken lightly.
>

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