On 1/6/06, Hubert Rabago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/6/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > IIRC, Craig implements Commands the way he did Actions, so there's one > > > instance of it for the whole app (per jvm, etc, you know what i mean). > > > > > > That's what the default Commons Chain imlementation does, so that's what > the > > current 1.3 code does ... if you don't want that, use a different > > implementation of org.apache.commons.chain.Chain :-). > > > > On the other hand, if you're using the CoR design pattern, all your > state > > information should be in the Context object that gets passed around, not > in > > instance variables in a Command instance. Therefore, you shouldn't > *want* > > to have multiple instances of the command classes. Put the per-request > > state information in the context (or approprately organized in a session > > scope attribute) where it belongs. > > > > Craig > > So, Frank, maybe what you want is a per-request POJO action object > that gets populated by the framework with request parameters, stuffs > the relevant data onto a context object, and triggers a chain to > fulfill the request.
Or, the per-request POJO *is* the context object (which already has per-request lifetime). Why have two beans instead of one? Hubert Craig
