struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig R. McClanahan" <Craig.McClana...@eng.sun.com>
Subject Re: ActionMapping Interface -> Class
Date Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:38:17 GMT
"Leland, Robert" wrote:

>
> Now that ActionMapping is a class rather than
> an Interface, can we expect other interfaces
> to go away ? Just curious.
>

The remaining interfaces (in the org.apache.struts.action) package are:
* Action
* ActionForm (and ValidatingActionForm).

For "Action" -- if nearly 100% of developers are creating actions by
extending ActionBase, I think it would be cleaner to make Action a class
instead.  How are people using it?

For "ActionForm" -- I suspect many people are using (or extending)
existing base classes, so this interface probably needs to remain.

By the way, the reasoning for making ActionMapping a class was to allow
future enhancements to its functionality to be supported (via additional
methods) without breaking existing implementation classes.  With a base
class, you can add methods with little impact, as long as there is not a
name clash.  Adding a method to an interface means that all existing
implementations have to be updated.

>
> Thanks !!
>
> -Rob

Craig

====================
See you at ApacheCon Europe <http://www.apachecon.com>!
Session VS01 (23-Oct 13h00-17h00):  Sun Technical Briefing
Session T06  (24-Oct 14h00-15h00):  Migrating Apache JServ
                                    Applications to Tomcat



Mime
View raw message