On May 15, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Dave Newton wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> A knows how to find/generate instances of Foo.
>> B knows how to find/generate instances of Bar.
>> C is an application specific Action that needs an instance of Foo and an
>> instance o
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> A knows how to find/generate instances of Foo.
> B knows how to find/generate instances of Bar.
> C is an application specific Action that needs an instance of Foo and an
> instance of Bar.
A & B are application-specific actions too. With
On May 15, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Jason Pyeron wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 11:11
>> To: user@struts.apache.org
>> Subject: Chained actions and their properties in the val
On May 15, 2011, at 8:34 AM, Dave Newton wrote:
> 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?
Ye
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. B does not have a getter/setter fo
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 11:11
> To: user@struts.apache.org
> Subject: Chained actions and their properties in the value stack
>
> I have a st of chained actions, in order
I have a st of chained actions, in order A, B, C.
A has a getter for Foo. B does not have a getter/setter for Foo. C has a
setter for Foo. It seems that A cannot provide C the value of Foo without B
also "participating" and implementing a getter/setter for Foo. Yuck.
Do I understand thing
7 matches
Mail list logo
