Since you asked... :)
On 11/15/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's definitely my instinct, too. Any thoughts on: > > 1) whether to include a simple FormBean interface that extends both > of the others I wouldn't -- if a class wants both interfaces, they can implement both. In doing so, they're still implementing the same number of methods, so the only typing difference is something like: implements Validatable, FormLifecycle versus: implements FormStuff > 2) what to call the interface with prePopulate FormLifecycle? > > ? > Rich > > Eddie O'Neil wrote: > > > My vote would be for two interfaces as it allows each to evolve > >independently. I'd guess that not all of our existing tests need > >both, so that's probably somewhat representative of some basic usage > >patterns which implies the loose coupling. Might as well not force > >classes to implement methods they don't need. :) > > > >Eddie > > > > > >On 11/15/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>OK, this is in with revision 344895. > >> > >>I did find the *single* bit of usefulness in extending FormData. Like > >>the Struts ActionForm, it allows you to perform initialization and other > >>logic in a reset() method. This method is called before population of > >>data from the request, and it has access to the request object. > >> > >>Given this, I'd propose exposing something like prePopulate() through an > >>interface. My preference would be to have a single interface (FormBean) > >>that either contains both prePopulate() and validate(), or extends two > >>separate interfaces for each of those two methods. > >> > >>Any thoughts on this? > >> > >>Thanks, > >>Rich > >> > >>Rich Feit wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Excellent. I made a local change that does this (and fixes up all the > >>>code/test that depends on it). If no one else has any objections, I'll > >>>check it in as soon as I'm finished. > >>> > >>>Eddie O'Neil wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>+1 > >>>> > >>>>Seems totally right to start doing this with the "legacy" infrastructure. > >>>> :) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>On 11/14/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>>Would anyone object to me deprecating > >>>>>org.apache.beehive.netui.pageflow.FormData? It's basically a legacy > >>>>>action form base class that's no longer necessary (as a user-visible > >>>>>class) since we support *any* type as a form bean. > >>>>> > >>>>>Let me know if you see any problem with this... > >>>>> > >>>>>Thanks, > >>>>>Rich > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > >
