Mailing-List: contact user-help@struts.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <user@struts.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of davelnewton@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=HiNChi8+zsm92l3SoeX54+b9aI3IzsxMMqSA+fgELo0LSSZBhGjc9LcTetpM+wCEWD
         Da4Wp9g2rmrrrPI5H4Fp3vE8hZTkZ720Buxcq4plGubCpVNfa5YZ7COOfTMx6ppyZm7D
         q0yKGCJu4knt5E1STLILwkB80TXyMRyqzl82w=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C719142E-E086-4DDA-866C-7E90A05780C8@toolazydogs.com>
References: <C719142E-E086-4DDA-866C-7E90A05780C8@toolazydogs.com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 11:34:49 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikXAGijb=Nh3B5g=dJvS2jvHcDixw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Chained actions and their properties in the value stack
From: Dave Newton <davelnewton@gmail.com>
To: Struts Users Mailing List <user@struts.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, May 15, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I have a st of chained actions, in order A, B, C.

Jason's correct--IMO action chaining is more trouble than it's worth,
almost always. *Three* in a chain?! What's the use case for this?

> A has a getter for Foo. =A0B does not have a getter/setter for Foo. =A0C =
has a setter for Foo. =A0It seems that A cannot provide C the value of Foo =
without B also "participating" and implementing a getter/setter for Foo. =
=A0Yuck.

Why "yuck"? You'd like the actions in the chain to be coupled even
*more* tightly and rely on hidden magic to maintain state between
them, beyond what's already provided?

Dave

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