Personally, I'd like to deprecate the alternate form. It only confuses people. If you want to use the same form bean in different circumstances, you can give the same form bean different names. I'd like to add extends to all the elements in 1.3, including DynaActionForm, so you'd be able to reuse DynaActionForms too. David W did add this to fulfill a specific user request, but we may have been too solicitous :)
-Ted. On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 17:18:17 -0500, Joe Germuska wrote: > At 1:05 PM -0700 4/4/04, Martin Cooper wrote: >> +1000! The first time I looked at these to figure out why we had >> two, I actually thought they were the same. It wasn't until I >> really studied the Javadocs that I realised the difference. (Yay >> for Javadocs!) I'm still not clear, though, on why we actually * >> need* two different mechanisms. >> > > If one wanted to use the same form bean in different cases, one > might have different validation rules. For example, you might have > a user ID be required when creating a record, but not even have it > editable when editing the record. By associating your validation > with the submission path instead of the form bean name, you can use > the same form bean with different validation rules. > > I personally haven't used this a lot, but I can see the > justification. > > > Joe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
