struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From stanl...@gmail.com
Subject Re: [OT] Re: Actions without extending ActionSupport?
Date Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:27:27 GMT
Hey Dave --

How many "more" times do you want to answer the POJO/ActionSupport
question?  I have recently finished writing a nifty little S2/Db4o web
application that allows for quiz taking on your favorite subjects.  It
randomizes questions, maintains global statistics [so you can quickly see
how you rank against everyone else] and will soon have support for tutoring
the user on questions missed.  I have seen many quiz apps that will
calculate correct/missed totals and then kick you out the door, but this one
is different.  Would you be willing to help me seed it with your top ten
puzzlers from this list?  I will have it hosted with several sample
questions this afternoon but I would ultimately like to load it up for
developers who want to learn the Struts 2 framework and have fun doing it!

Scott

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Dave Newton <newton.dave@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ah, I get it now. How many email addresses do you have, anyway?
>
> I'm definitely too easy to troll.
>
> --- nobody <dailykos@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Dave Newton wrote:
> > > in some ways I like being coupled to static methods even less because
> > it's
> > > not injectable.
> >
> > Not true. FacesContext is injectable with if you use Seam, Spring IoC,
> or
> > Guice. Perhaps the native IoC container in JSF will provide this
> > injectability natively in JSF 2.0.
> >
> >
> > Jeromy Evans - Blue Sky Minds wrote:
> > > Agreed. Using a static method call is NOT a form of decoupling from
> the
> > > framework. In fact, it's less desirable than an interface because its
> > > harder to
> > > test and override.
> >
> > They are degrees of coupling. JSF's sue of a static method call results
> in
> > much less framework coupling than, say, inheriting a base class as
> Struts2
> > would have you do. This is because the static method call can be mocked
> > quite easily whereas Struts2 base classes (and whatever they depend on)
> not
> > nearly as easily.
> >
> > I agree that the ultimate decoupling is simple interfaces, and this is
> > precisely what JSF and Spring-MVC use. Both also use static method calls
> to
> > obtain framework services. Struts2 does not. Instead, Struts2 forces you
> to
> > either use its base classes or, if you choose to use its interfaces,
> > rewrite
> > a lot of plumbing that you shouldn't have to rewrite.
> >
> > As has been pointed out in other threads, suffers from the Fragile Base
> > Class anti-pattern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragile_base_class). I
> > don't think anyone would claim JSF and Spring-MVC suffer from this
> problem,
> > and although they do have problems of their own, they're not necessarily
> > fundamental design issues like with Struts2.
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
>
> http://www.nabble.com/Actions-without-extending-ActionSupport--tp15591064p15762345.html
> > Sent from the Struts - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Scott
stanlick@gmail.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message