Bruno Dumon wrote: > > Thoughts? > > Just a quick one: you're assuming there actually is a bean. Or to put it > in another way: to create a "dywel" form, you also need to create a > bean. Makes me think a lot of Struts' "form beans" again (i.e. beans > created especially for form handling). One of the goals behind Woody was > to make it possible to create forms without necessarily writing a > bean... > Not exactly (also it might be wording), you have to create a component that might use beans but doesn't have to.
But in general, yes you're right. My approach is targetted at editing business objects (=java objects). It's not used for editing xml data or for processing form values in others ways, like sending emails etc. That's why I still think that it makes sense to follow the dywel approach but I want to use underneath as much as possible from the existing features we already have. Carsten
