Well, it needs to be the same as the property name since it uses the getter to get the value to validate :-) So I'd say the name attribute should not even be optional. I'm not sure whether this should be on getters or setters... You may want to validate properties with no setter? Just a thought.
Why would you want to validate a property with no setter? It would never get populated into the Action instance so its of no use, right?
I thought the idea with new Xdoclet stuff was to make the separate projects maintain their own plugins? Maybe that's just the 2.0 stuff, though.
XDoclet2 is a long way away from being viable (unless Aslak takes a weekend to code, damn that guy is fast!).
Well, XDoclet is a bit like Ant with these 3rd party things being jammed in. It makes the tool more useful to get started with as it has it all built-in, but then upgrading and keeping in sync is tougher when the committers don't care about the 3rd party projects. With XWork, there is enough representation in the XDoclet committers to keep it current. The current version of XDoclet has enough stuff already in there, and already supports WebWork1, so I'm all for keeping it in XDoclet until the 2.0 timeframe.
Erik
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine. WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the same time. Free trial click here: http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/345/0 _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
