Comparing Struts 1 and 2

FeatureStruts 1Struts 2
Action classesStruts 1 requires Action classes to extend an abstract base class. A common problem in Struts 1 is programming to abstract classes instead of interfaces.An Struts 2 Action may implement an Action interface, along with other interfaces to enable optional and custom services. Struts 2 provides a base ActionSupport class to implement commonly used interfaces. Albeit, the Action interface is not required. Any POJO object with a execute signature can be used as an Struts 2 Action object.
Threading ModelStruts 1 Actions are singletons and must be thread-safe since there will only be one instance of a class to handle all requests for that Action. The singleton strategy places restrictions on what can be done with Struts 1 Actions and requires extra care to develop. Action resources must be thread-safe or synchronized.Struts 2 Action objects are instantiated for each request, so there are no thread-safety issues. (In practice, servlet containers generate many throw-away objects per request, and one more object does not impose a performance penalty or impact garbage collection.)
Servlet DependencyStruts 1 Actions have dependencies on the servlet API since the HttpServletRequest and HttpServletResponse is passed to the execute method when an Action is invoked.Struts 2 Actions are not coupled to a container. Most often the servlet contexts are represented as simple Maps, allowing Actions to be tested in isolation. Struts 2 Actions can still access the original request and response, if required. However, other architectural elements reduce or eliminate the need to access the HttpServetRequest or HttpServletResponse directly.
TestabilityA major hurdle to testing Struts 1 Actions is that the execute method exposes the Servlet API. A third-party extension, Struts TestCase, offers a set of mock object for Struts 1.Struts 2 Actions can be tested by instantiating the Action, setting properties, and invoking methods. Dependency Injection support also makes testing simpler.
Harvesting InputStruts 1 uses an ActionForm object to capture input. Like Actions, all ActionForms must extend a base class. Since  other JavaBeans cannot be used as ActionForms, developers often create redundant classes to capture input. DynaBeans can used as an alternative to creating conventional ActionForm classes, but, here too, developers may be redescribing existing JavaBeans.
Struts 2 uses Action properties as input properties, eliminating the need for a second input object. Input properties may be rich object types which may have their own properties. The Action properties can be accessed from the web page via the taglibs. Struts 2 also supports the ActionForm pattern, as well as POJO form objects and POJO Actions. Rich object types, including business or domain objects, can be used as input/output objects. The ModelDriven feature simplifies taglb references to POJO input objects.
Expression LanguageStruts 1 integrates with JSTL, so it uses the JSTL EL. The EL has basic object graph traversal, but relatively weak collection and indexed property support.Struts 2 can use JSTL, but the framework also supports a more powerful and flexible expression language called "Object Graph Notation Language" (OGNL).
Binding values into viewsStruts 1 uses the standard JSP mechanism for binding objects into the page context for access.Struts 2 uses a "ValueStack" technology so that the taglibs can access values without coupling your view to the object type it is rendering. The ValueStack strategy allows reuse of views across a range of types which may have the same property name but different property types.
Type ConversionStruts 1 ActionForm properties are usually all Strings. Struts 1 uses Commons-Beanutils for type conversion. Converters are per-class, and not configurable per instance.Struts 2 uses OGNL for type conversion. The framework includes converters for basic and common object types and primitives.
ValidationStruts 1 supports manual validation via a validate method on the ActionForm, or through an extension to the Commons Validator. Classes can have different validation contexts for the same class, but cannot chain to validations on sub-objects.Struts 2 supports manual validation via the validate method and the XWork Validation framework. The Xwork Validation Framework supports chaining validation into sub-properties using the validations defined for the properties class type and the validation context.
Control Of Action ExecutionStruts 1 supports separate Request Processors (lifecycles) for each module, but all the Actions in the module must share the same lifecycle.Struts 2 supports creating different lifecycles on a per Action basis via Interceptor Stacks. Custom stacks can be created and used with different Actions, as needed. 




基于部落竞争与成员合作算法(CTCM)融合动态窗口法DWA的无人机三维动态避障方法研究,MATLAB代码 动态避障路径规划:基于部落竞争与成员合作算法(CTCM)融合动态窗口法DWA的无人机三维动态避障方法研究,MATLAB 融合DWA的青蒿素优化算法(AOA)求解无人机三维动态避障路径规划,MATLAB代码 基于动态环境下多智能体自主避障路径优化的DWA算法研究,MATLAB代码 融合DWA的青蒿素优化算法AOA求解无人机三维动态避障路径规划,MATLAB代码 基于DWA的多智能体动态避障路径规划算法研究,MATLAB代码 融合动态窗口法DWA的粒子群算法PSO求解无人机三维动态避障路径规划研究,MATLAB代码 基于粒子群算法PSO融合动态窗口法DWA的无人机三维动态避障路径规划研究,MATLAB代码 基于ACOSRAR-DWA无人机三维动态避障路径规划,MATLAB代码 基于ACOSRAR-DWA无人机三维动态避障路径规划,MATLAB代码 基于DWA的动态环境下无人机自主避障路径优化,MATLAB代码 基于DWA的动态环境下机器人自主避障路径规划,MATLAB代码 基于城市场景下RRT、ACO、A*算法的无人机三维路径规划方法研究,MATLAB代码 基于城市场景下无人机三维路径规划的导航变量的多目标粒子群优化算法(NMOPSO),MATLAB代码 导航变量的多目标粒子群优化算法(NMOPSO)求解复杂城市场景下无人机三维路径规划,MATLAB代码 原创:5种最新多目标优化算法求解多无人机协同路径规划(多起点多终点,起始点、无人机数、障碍物可自定义),MATLAB代码 原创:4种最新多目标优化算法求解多无人机协同路径规划(多起点多终点,起始点、无人机数、障碍物可自定义),MATLAB代码 高维超多目标优化:基于导航变量的多目标粒子群优化算法(NMOPSO)的无人机三维
评论
成就一亿技术人!
拼手气红包6.0元
还能输入1000个字符
 
红包 添加红包
表情包 插入表情
 条评论被折叠 查看
添加红包

请填写红包祝福语或标题

红包个数最小为10个

红包金额最低5元

当前余额3.43前往充值 >
需支付:10.00
成就一亿技术人!
领取后你会自动成为博主和红包主的粉丝 规则
hope_wisdom
发出的红包
实付
使用余额支付
点击重新获取
扫码支付
钱包余额 0

抵扣说明:

1.余额是钱包充值的虚拟货币,按照1:1的比例进行支付金额的抵扣。
2.余额无法直接购买下载,可以购买VIP、付费专栏及课程。

余额充值