st
Subject: Re: Theoretical debate
Hookom, Jacob wrote:
Look at JSF, do you have actions? No, JSF just updates your POJO beans and
calls methods on them. Why have an ActionForm or have to create all of
these Actions that are simply getter/setter adapters? Please don't be too
quick to retort
At 11:24 PM 7/8/2004, you wrote:
If you've "cheated" on the separation of concerns issues in your
existing app, this is going to seem harder.
Boy, HOWDIE! This is so often the case. The whole reason for separation
of concerns just jumps out at us during these situations.
--
ubject: Re: Theoretical debate
One aspect of JSF which I find troubling is, "With JSF, the component model
takes care of all the
responsibilities that Struts uses an ActionForm form, so you don't need one
any more."
Most of the JSF examples I've studied use method (2) from Cra
ob Hookom
-Original Message-
From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 7:35 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Theoretical debate
Hookom, Jacob wrote:
>Look at JSF, do you have actions? No, JSF just updates your POJO beans and
>calls method
Mike Duffy wrote:
One aspect of JSF which I find troubling is, "With JSF, the component
model takes care of all the
responsibilities that Struts uses an ActionForm form, so you don't
need one any more."
Most of the JSF examples I've studied use method (2) from Craig's list
below: "You can bind
> JSF takes care of conversion
> problems, and redisplay in case of conversion errors, for you.
indeed, converters are a BIG-plus in JSF
the DateTimeConverter allows you to use
java.util.Date in a BackingBean.
enter in textfield: 12/06/2004
and java.util.Date got created...
on the other s
Mike Duffy wrote:
One aspect of JSF which I find troubling is, "With JSF, the component model takes care of all the
responsibilities that Struts uses an ActionForm form, so you don't need one any more."
Most of the JSF examples I've studied use method (2) from Craig's list below: "You can bind
c
One aspect of JSF which I find troubling is, "With JSF, the component model takes care
of all the
responsibilities that Struts uses an ActionForm form, so you don't need one any more."
Most of the JSF examples I've studied use method (2) from Craig's list below: "You can
bind
component *value
Hookom, Jacob wrote:
Look at JSF, do you have actions? No, JSF just updates your POJO beans and
calls methods on them. Why have an ActionForm or have to create all of
these Actions that are simply getter/setter adapters? Please don't be too
quick to retort to my supposed anti-struts mindset, but
ent: 18 June 2004 15:31
> > To: Struts Users Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Theoretical debate
> >
> >
> > At 07:18 AM 6/18/2004, Bill Schneider wrote:
> >
> > >Form beans can be thought of as a special case of DTOs: they are the
> > &
> -Original Message-
> From: mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 18 June 2004 15:31
> To: Struts Users Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Theoretical debate
>
>
> At 07:18 AM 6/18/2004, Bill Schneider wrote:
>
> >Form beans can be tho
--- Frank Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know what your saying, it's the way I do things as well, doing very
> little work in the Actions aside from tossing values around and calling
> subordinate classes to do the real work.
>
> But doesn't that in a sense support the idea of an applicat
d by not using DTOs
because it's easier to do things that do tie you to it.
Frank
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Theoretical debate
Date:
At 07:18 AM 6/18/2004, Bill Schneider wrote:
Form beans can be thought of as a special case of DTOs: they are the
argument the client (web browser) passes to the remote method call (HTTP
POST). So passing form beans directly to business logic is _almost_
reasonable, putting the dependency issue
Dennis
"Frank Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
06/18/2004 09:42 AM
Please respond to
"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
Subject
RE: Theoretical debate
You know, kind of off-topic, but you remind me of a conversation I had with
someone at
I ask because most of the Struts apps I've seen don't bother with the
DTO's, they just pass the ActionForm to the subordinate classes, or else
pass them as parameters. It seems that regardless of what literature is
telling is we should do, in practice (GENERALLY), people don't bother
with the
;
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
Subject
RE: Theoretical debate
You know, kind of off-topic, but you remind me of
a conversation I had with
someone at work here, maybe you guys would have some input...
I know what various patterns tell us we should do, but in p
14:43
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Theoretical debate
>
>
> You know, kind of off-topic, but you remind me of a conversation
> I had with
> someone at work here, maybe you guys would have some input...
>
> I know what various patterns tell us we should do, but
At 06:42 AM 6/18/2004, Frank Zammetti wrote:
You know, kind of off-topic, but you remind me of a conversation I had
with someone at work here, maybe you guys would have some
I ask because most of the Struts apps I've seen don't bother with the
DTO's, they just pass the ActionForm to the subordin
Original Message-
From: Frank Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 8:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Theoretical debate
I know what your saying, it's the way I do things as well, doing very little
work in the Actions aside from tossing values arou
At 06:36 AM 6/18/2004, Frank Zammetti wrote:
In that mindset, I can see some logic to saying something like Crysalis is
on a better path because your simplifying things a bit by essentially
removing a layer. I think we're all conditioned to think that ADDING
layers of abstaction is a good thing
rogramming
could be viewed as procedural weight too.
At 04:58 AM 6/18/2004, Pilgrim, Peter wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Hookom, Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 June 2004 20:58
> To: 'Struts Users Mailing List'
> Subject: RE: Theoretical debate
do, in practice (GENERALLY), people don't bother with the DTO's.
Have I just looked at the wrong apps? What are most people doing in this
regard?
Frank
From: "Brian Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [E
27;m not so sure the current forms of
this methodology are spot on just yet), so discussions of things like this
are always of interest to me.
Frank
From: Hubert Rabago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Users Mailing Li
I describe this in more detail in the book, but my take on this is that
Struts and JSF are focused on different parts of the application. They
also overlap in some areas, however, which is probably the cause for
this endless discussion.
In particular, I've noticed that a simple "hello world" applic
> -Original Message-
> From: Hookom, Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 June 2004 20:58
> To: 'Struts Users Mailing List'
> Subject: RE: Theoretical debate
>
>
> I completely agree with what Crysalis is trying to push, also
> a framewor
ayer between the
view and business services.
Anyway, that's my take on things!
Daniel.
> -Original Message-
> From: mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 June 2004 21:45
> To: Struts Users Mailing List; Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: RE: Theoretical debate
e 18, 2004 1:28 AM
To: 'Struts Users Mailing List'
Subject: RE: Theoretical debate
I completely agree with what Crysalis is trying to push, also a
framework
called VRaptor (vraptor.org) also pushes the same idea of moving away
from
the procedural weight that Struts promotes.
Look at JSF
hout, or don't want to implement as JSF plug-ins, I would take a
look at the Struts-JSF integration library and consider using both.
Regards
Kamakshya Prasad Mishra
Sourav, you might know me
-Original Message-----
From: souravm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004
gical
extension of Struts.
Please rectify me if my high level understanding is wrong.
Regards,
Sourav
-Original Message-
From: Hookom, Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 1:28 AM
To: 'Struts Users Mailing List'
Subject: RE: Theoretical debate
I completely
hen you try to
use the same value/transfer objects in multiple processes.
I think it's a generally accepted practice that separating data from
logic is a "Good Thing"(tm).
BAL
From: "Hookom, Jacob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Struts Users Mailing List' &
same value/transfer objects in multiple processes.
I think it's a generally accepted practice that separating data from
logic is a "Good Thing"(tm).
BAL
>From: "Hookom, Jacob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 'Struts Users Mailing List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&g
lenty of rope to hang yourself
My 2 cents.
robert
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Theoretical debate
>
>
> Last night I was Googling for something
value/transfer
objects in multiple processes.
I think it's a generally accepted practice that separating data from logic
is a "Good Thing"(tm).
BAL
From: "Hookom, Jacob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Struts Users Mailing List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE
+1 I personally do not find what you have to or can do with Struts much of
a problem at all. I like the freedom the separation gives me. It is
rather like the defensive idea of Aaron Nitzovitch in chess. If you just
defend a square or piece as much as required, all the defensive pieces are
> From: Frank Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Most likely you would have a ShoppingCart class with a number of methods
in it,
> things like addItem(), removeItem(), totalPrice(), etc.
I follow this design on my applications, on the *business logic* tier.
On that tier (whether I imple
> In Struts, although you aren't FORCED to, what you GENERALLY do is
> create
> three different Action classes like addItemAction, removeItemAction
> and
> totalPriceAction, and each is called in response to a form
> submission.
Most (if not all) the Actions in my current application extend
Look
user group questions...
-Original Message-
From: Hookom, Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:58 PM
To: 'Struts Users Mailing List'
Subject: RE: Theoretical debate
I completely agree with what Crysalis is trying to push, also a framework
called VRaptor (vrap
---
-Jacob Hookom
-Original Message-
From: Frank Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Theoretical debate
Last night I was Googling for something and I stumbled across the Crysalis
framework. I was actualyl intrigued by th
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Theoretical debate
Last night I was Googling for something and I stumbled across the Crysalis
framework. I was actualyl intrigued by the underlying premise of it and I
wanted to see what others thought about it.
In a nut
Last night I was Googling for something and I stumbled across the Crysalis
framework. I was actualyl intrigued by the underlying premise of it and I
wanted to see what others thought about it.
In a nutshell and in my own words, Crysalis
(http://chrysalis.sourceforge.net/) has the underlying id
41 matches
Mail list logo
