> version http://www.theserverside.com/patterns/depbmp.jsp.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 10:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Bean philosophy
>
> > Jonas Bjornerstedt wrote:
> version http://www.theserverside.com/patterns/depbmp.jsp.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 10:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Bean philosophy
>
> > Jonas Bjornerstedt wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jonathan Asbell wrote:
> Craig, that was the most excellent explanation.
Thanks.
> What currently IS available
> for use regarding the automatic properties, and how may I use them? I
> download the nightly builds ;^>
There's nothing in the "official" builds at the mome
esday, May 30, 2001 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Bean philosophy
> Jonas Bjornerstedt wrote:
> > I see little reason (yet) why the ActionForm should be modeled as such.
>
> I think the keyword here is "yet". Much of the underlying Struts designs
> are based on trends
L PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 4:14 PM
Subject: RE: Bean philosophy
>
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jonas Bjornerstedt wrote:
>
> > Although you get basic type conversion with the getter/setter methods,
it is
> > not a convincing argument. The
Jonas Bjornerstedt wrote:
> I see little reason (yet) why the ActionForm should be modeled as such.
I think the keyword here is "yet". Much of the underlying Struts designs
are based on trends and patterns that have yet to reach their logical
conclusion.
For example, future Java design tools ar
> Dynamic properties are a very very very heavily requested feature, and
> will undoubtedly be addressed early in the Struts 1.1 development
> cycle. Supporting them elegantly is more than just a couple of tweaks
> here and there, so we want to make sure that we've got all the bases
> covered wit
Thanks for taking some time to answer my "naiive question.
>
> I think you've really got two threads of questions here, so
> let me try to
> address them separately.
>
> (1) Why use getXxx and setXxx for properties?
>
> This is a general design pattern called JavaBeans, and you
> will find it ver
perty.
Taylor
- Original Message -
From: "Jonas Bjornerstedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:57 PM
Subject: RE: Bean philosophy
> Although you get basic type conversion with the getter/setter methods, it
is
> not a convi
on't
give you the other automatic support it does for ActionForm beans.
> Jonas
>
Craig McClanahan
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: David Winterfeldt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 5:32 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> &g
Winterfeldt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 5:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bean philosophy
>
>
> I wanted to crank out a prototype of something and
> didn't want to make all of the setter/getter methods
> so I modified PropertyUtils
> In a Been, you can use a Hashtable to save your attributes,
> but you don't have to use a Hashtable. I normaly don't.
> Because I know which attributes to expect, I implement these
> as fields in the Bean, and save the values in these. I know
> that a Hashtable has an expected constant-time on t
I wanted to crank out a prototype of something and
didn't want to make all of the setter/getter methods
so I modified PropertyUtils to handle java.util.Map.
I posted some source, but other people have cleaner OO
implementation ideas that they have posted. Something
along this idea is scheduled i
- Original Message -
From: "Jonas Björnerstedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 4:55 PM
Subject: Bean philosophy
> Having just switched from Perl to Java web development, perhaps I am missing
> something fundamental. Being new to the for
14 matches
Mail list logo