You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Kurt Post <kp...@cfl.rr.com> on 2003/07/11 00:05:02 UTC
RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor
I wasn't intending that the request object be kept around. Isn't it true
that even if an ActionForm object is kept in the session scope, it is
created in response to a HTTP request?
The idea is to simply use the ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest that
caused the ActionForm object to be created to initialize the properties of
the ActionForm. The ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest wouldn't be kept
as an attribute of the ActionForm so there is no serialization problem.
If an ActionForm object could get a hold of the HttpServletRequest (and thus
HttpSession) when it is created, you could eliminate the need for a separate
Action to pre-populate the ActionForm properties.
Does this make my request make any more sense or am I still missing
something.
-----Original Message-----
From: bugzilla@apache.org [mailto:bugzilla@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 5:20 PM
To: struts-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or
HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor
dgraham@apache.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
------- Additional Comments From dgraham@apache.org 2003-07-10
21:19 -------
ActionForm is Serializable and ServletRequest is not. Even if we made the
request variable transient, there would be no way to retrieve the request
object
when the form was deserialized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: New Request Processor System [was Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479]
- Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor]
Posted by "Peter A. Pilgrim" <pe...@xenonsoft.demon.co.uk>.
David Graham wrote:
>>As one of those contributors to the whole "Composable Request Processor"
>>a while ago, is there chance that we will get hint to what the
>>Request Processor system look likes?
>
>
> I haven't seen it yet but I hear it's based on the GoF Chain of
> Responsibility pattern and will be a commons component, not Struts
> specific. This seemed to be an appropriate middle ground between the
> Filters vs. Struts only RequestProcessor debate to me.
Chain of Responsibility is appropriate. My guess is there may be
probably multiple CoR here just by casual inspection of the
current request processor.
Anyway, the bug bear would be the configuration details
of the new request processor. This is what the previous bun-fight
debate detoriated to? Should it be with XML and/or
programmatically? I wait with baited breathe.
I finished of Struts 1.1 FCS integration Expresso Framework today,
time to catch some well deserved sun and sea.
--
Peter Pilgrim
__ _____ _____ _____
/ //__ // ___// ___/ + Serverside Java
/ /___/ // /__ / /__ + Struts
/ // ___// ___// ___/ + Expresso Committer
__/ // /__ / /__ / /__ + Independent Contractor
/___//____//____//____/ + Intrinsic Motivation
On Line Resume
||
\\===> `` http://www.xenonsoft.demon.co.uk/no-it-striker.html ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: New Request Processor System [was Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor]
Posted by David Graham <gr...@yahoo.com>.
> As one of those contributors to the whole "Composable Request Processor"
> a while ago, is there chance that we will get hint to what the
> Request Processor system look likes?
I haven't seen it yet but I hear it's based on the GoF Chain of
Responsibility pattern and will be a commons component, not Struts
specific. This seemed to be an appropriate middle ground between the
Filters vs. Struts only RequestProcessor debate to me.
David
>
>
> --
> Peter Pilgrim
> __ _____ _____ _____
> / //__ // ___// ___/ + Serverside Java
> / /___/ // /__ / /__ + Struts
> / // ___// ___// ___/ + Expresso Committer
> __/ // /__ / /__ / /__ + Independent Contractor
> /___//____//____//____/ + Intrinsic Motivation
> On Line Resume
> ||
> \\===> `` http://www.xenonsoft.demon.co.uk/no-it-striker.html ''
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
New Request Processor System [was Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] -
Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor]
Posted by "Peter A. Pilgrim" <pe...@xenonsoft.demon.co.uk>.
David Graham wrote:
> There is some movement towards separating Struts from the Servlet API so
> that it may be used in by the upcoming Portlets API. Craig is
> implementing a new RequestProcessor system that accomodates that and I
> would hate to move things in the opposite direction by tying ActionForms
> even more to HttpServletRequest objects.
>
> David
>
> --- Kurt Post <kp...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
As one of those contributors to the whole "Composable Request Processor"
a while ago, is there chance that we will get hint to what the
Request Processor system look likes?
--
Peter Pilgrim
__ _____ _____ _____
/ //__ // ___// ___/ + Serverside Java
/ /___/ // /__ / /__ + Struts
/ // ___// ___// ___/ + Expresso Committer
__/ // /__ / /__ / /__ + Independent Contractor
/___//____//____//____/ + Intrinsic Motivation
On Line Resume
||
\\===> `` http://www.xenonsoft.demon.co.uk/no-it-striker.html ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor
Posted by David Graham <gr...@yahoo.com>.
There is some movement towards separating Struts from the Servlet API so
that it may be used in by the upcoming Portlets API. Craig is
implementing a new RequestProcessor system that accomodates that and I
would hate to move things in the opposite direction by tying ActionForms
even more to HttpServletRequest objects.
David
--- Kurt Post <kp...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> I wasn't intending that the request object be kept around. Isn't it
> true
> that even if an ActionForm object is kept in the session scope, it is
> created in response to a HTTP request?
>
> The idea is to simply use the ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest that
> caused the ActionForm object to be created to initialize the properties
> of
> the ActionForm. The ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest wouldn't be
> kept
> as an attribute of the ActionForm so there is no serialization problem.
>
> If an ActionForm object could get a hold of the HttpServletRequest (and
> thus
> HttpSession) when it is created, you could eliminate the need for a
> separate
> Action to pre-populate the ActionForm properties.
>
> Does this make my request make any more sense or am I still missing
> something.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bugzilla@apache.org [mailto:bugzilla@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 5:20 PM
> To: struts-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21479] - Add ServletRequest or
> HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor
>
>
> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
> RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
> <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479>.
> ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
> INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
>
> Add ServletRequest or HttpServletRequest to ActionForm constructor
>
> dgraham@apache.org changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status|NEW |RESOLVED
> Resolution| |INVALID
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From dgraham@apache.org 2003-07-10
> 21:19 -------
> ActionForm is Serializable and ServletRequest is not. Even if we made
> the
> request variable transient, there would be no way to retrieve the
> request
> object
> when the form was deserialized.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org