From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-03-12 09:01:18
|
Maurice Parker wrote: > This would break a lot of code that has relied on this behavior. I=20 > don't use Commands, so I don't have the same validation issues that you= =20 > get with Commands. I simply don't implement doValidation() on Actions I= =20 > don't want to validate. But if you remove validate() from execute()=20 > lots of my code has to be updated to go and explicitly call=20 > doValidate(). I'm sure there are others that will have the same proble= m. To me it sounds like most arguments thus far rely on "I need it to work=20 this way because otherwise my code breaks". Sure, I have code that would=20 need updating too (either way), but that's not really the concern right n= ow. If implicit -> need to add if's to validation code that switches on comma= nd. If explicit -> need to add validate()'s to execution/command code. Does anyone have an opinion that is based on the actual problem and not=20 their own situation? That would be more helpful. regards, Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg Author of "Mastering RMI" Chief Architect, TheServerSide.com The Middleware Company - We Build Experts! |