RE: Commands vs. Controllers

> So why is it Controllers that we build our applications to
> (by extending one of the four Controller implementing classes
> like FormBeanUser) yet it is Commands that get created by the
> Dispatcher?  

Let's look at it:

1. Browser requests an URL (eg. http://localhost/test.m)
2. In maveric terminology it appears that test.m is actually
   mapped to a "test" command.
3. Maverick dispatches the request to appropriate Controller
   that takes care of command execution. Controller also takes
   care of the flow (eg. returns a view or executes another
   command).

Any controller can serve multiple commands. So commands are just
placeholders for specific URLs.

And another way around: Command fires a controller. If your
application has separate controller for each command, then
at least I allow you to say that command is a controller or
that controller wraps a command (and takes care of it's
execution).

Maverick only dispatches, you have the control!



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner.
Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission!
INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php
[INVALID FOOTER]