You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Paul Benedict <pa...@yahoo.com> on 2006/02/17 03:32:01 UTC
Question about ActionDispatcher
Why was it designed to use "flavors" instead of subclassing? I don't get it. Why code all the
different types of mappings into one class? If I wanted to add a few more, I am clogging one class
with a ton of different strategies. I find this to be a flaw. I propose this be broken into
subclasses. Flavors doesn't seem very OOP to me or managable in the long run. Anyone else agree?
Paul
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Question about ActionDispatcher
Posted by Paul Benedict <pa...@yahoo.com>.
Martin,
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@struts.apache.org/msg03277.html
Is this the discussion? Forgive me if I can't find it. This discussion is about why it's good to
re-factor out the dispatch code, not why "flavors" were chosen over subclassing.
Hmm... Now I think you misunderstood my use of "subclassing". My question isn't why subclasses of
Action exist, but why subclasses of ActionDispatcher do not exist. The design decision was flavors
over subclassing, why? Do you understand what I am saying? "subclassing" not as in
MappingDispatchAction etc, but MappingActionDispatcher.
Paul
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Question about ActionDispatcher
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
Try the list archives. All the discussion is there.
--
Martin Cooper
On 2/16/06, Paul Benedict <pa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Why was it designed to use "flavors" instead of subclassing? I don't get
> it. Why code all the
> different types of mappings into one class? If I wanted to add a few more,
> I am clogging one class
> with a ton of different strategies. I find this to be a flaw. I propose
> this be broken into
> subclasses. Flavors doesn't seem very OOP to me or managable in the long
> run. Anyone else agree?
>
> Paul
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>