actions {
action(id: 'exitAction', name: 'Exit', closure: controller.exit)
action(id: 'openAction', name: 'Open', closure: controller.open)
...
}
which I import into my view:
// build actions
build(PSICATActions)
application(title:'PSICAT', size:[800,600], locationByPlatform: true, layout: new MigLayout('fill')) {
...
}
This is nice because it keeps all of your action definitions in one place and doesn't clutter your view code with them. When implementing the actions, the common pattern seems to define closures on your controller:
class PSICATController {
def model
def view
void mvcGroupInit(Map args) {
...
}
def exit = { evt = null ->
...
}
def open = { evt = null ->
...
}
}
This is fine but when you start getting many actions your controller becomes cluttered and it is difficult to tell what is an action implementation and what is regular controller logic. You also have to be careful with naming:
actions {
action(id: 'exitAction', name: 'Exit', closure: controller.exit)
action(id: 'openAction', name: 'Open', closure: controller.open)
action(id: 'newAction', name: 'New', closure: controller.new) // ERROR
}
We are forced to break with our naming convention because 'new' is a reserved keyword. To combat the clutter and avoid naming issues, I've taken to declaring my action implementations in a map on the controller:
class PSICATController {
def model
def view
void mvcGroupInit(Map args) {
...
}
def actions = [
'exit': { evt = null -> ... },
'open': { evt = null -> ... },
'new': { evt = null -> ... } // no issues here
]
}
Using the map makes it easy to tell what is an action and what is not, and linking the action definitions to the implementations becomes elegant and intuitive:
actions {
action(id: 'exitAction', name: 'Exit', closure: controller.actions['exit'])
action(id: 'openAction', name: 'Open', closure: controller.actions['open'])
action(id: 'newAction', name: 'New', closure: controller.actions['new'])
}
So far I have been pretty happy with this approach. What do other Griffon developers out there think?
