RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
Next, James Stachan will insist we need a way to use Groovy for actions :-). (A smiley only because I always smile when seeing how passionate James gets when he talks about Groovy -- it's actually a pretty good idea.) http://groovy.codehaus.org/bsf.html :-) James' passion for any project he takes on is pretty inspiring. Not to mention that he produces great stuff! Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
Quoting Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> Heck, if you throw the JSF extension into the mix, I wager you > >> could write significant Struts applications now without writing > >> any Java code at all. :) > >> > >> http://struts.sourceforge.net/struts-bsf/index.html > >> > > > > I have in fact thrown the BSF extension into the mix, and I'm > > pretty excited about it! > > Yep. Lost track of who I was chatting with :) > > Next, James Stachan will insist we need a way to use Groovy for actions :-). (A smiley only because I always smile when seeing how passionate James gets when he talks about Groovy -- it's actually a pretty good idea.) > > Joe > > Craig - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:55:19 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote: >> A JSP author should be able to define one without any problem. >> And the one suggested here, could be a standard part of your >> team's starter Struts config. >> > > Well, I just want it all NOW and we're already piling a lot onto > the people who are making JSPs (who, by the way, don't quite fit > the profile of "JSP author" as in the way that Sun and others split > it up -- these folks don't write their own JavaScript either -- > yet.) > > Actually, my guinea pig... er, first "student" has managed to do a > few pretty decent configuration tasks on her own already. If they are writing Struts JSPs, then you must be handling them some type of default web application that imports the tags. It can just as easily include the default, blank DynaBean they can use with whatever forms they happen to be writing. Remember, the one form-bean can be used with any number of forms. This doesn't create any additional work for the JSP author. Learning JSP authors DynaBeans can actually *save* JSP authors a lot of work. I often do full storyboards that gather and validate input from forms before writing any Action classes at all. Just straight Struts JSPs. This lets you demonstrate a huge hunk of the screen requirements up front, in live code that can rollover into the working application. >> Heck, if you throw the JSF extension into the mix, I wager you >> could write significant Struts applications now without writing >> any Java code at all. :) >> >> http://struts.sourceforge.net/struts-bsf/index.html >> > > I have in fact thrown the BSF extension into the mix, and I'm > pretty excited about it! Yep. Lost track of who I was chatting with :) > Joe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
A JSP author should be able to define one without any problem. And the one suggested here, could be a standard part of your team's starter Struts config. Well, I just want it all NOW and we're already piling a lot onto the people who are making JSPs (who, by the way, don't quite fit the profile of "JSP author" as in the way that Sun and others split it up -- these folks don't write their own JavaScript either -- yet.) Actually, my guinea pig... er, first "student" has managed to do a few pretty decent configuration tasks on her own already. Heck, if you throw the JSF extension into the mix, I wager you could write significant Struts applications now without writing any Java code at all. :) http://struts.sourceforge.net/struts-bsf/index.html I have in fact thrown the BSF extension into the mix, and I'm pretty excited about it! Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
DynaBeans are specified in the Struts-Config. They are not Java classes that an engineer needs to writes. http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/userGuide/building_controller.html#dyna_action_form_classes A JSP author should be able to define one without any problem. And the one suggested here, could be a standard part of your team's starter Struts config. Heck, if you throw the JSF extension into the mix, I wager you could write significant Struts applications now without writing any Java code at all. :) http://struts.sourceforge.net/struts-bsf/index.html -Ted. On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:31:46 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote: > At 11:29 PM -0500 1/15/04, Ted Husted wrote: >> My only comment is that it seems we're throwing a lot of >> technology at a problem that could be solved by putting an empty >> DynaActionForm in the Struts config, and just referring to that. >> Perhaps something like: >> >> > type="org.apache.struts.action.DynaForm" /> >> > > That doesn't solve the problem if you want to use html:input tags > when you haven't created the form-beans yet. That's kind of a > corner case, but we are gradually getting non-developers who can > write JSPs and tags ok but haven't yet learned struts-config > syntax. Eventually I hope that they will, and then this might not > be so important. > > I still prefer to err on the side of permissiveness -- a blank form > rather than a stack trace. > > Joe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
>>At 11:29 PM -0500 1/15/04, Ted Husted wrote: >>My only comment is that it seems we're throwing a lot of technology at >> a problem that could be solved by putting an empty DynaActionForm in >> the Struts config, and just referring to that. Perhaps something like: >> >> type="org.apache.struts.action.DynaForm" /> > >That doesn't solve the problem if you want to use html:input tags when >you haven't created the form-beans yet. That's kind of a corner case, >but we are gradually getting non-developers who can write JSPs and tags >ok but haven't yet learned struts-config syntax. Eventually I hope >that they will, and then this might not be so important. > >From the writ, page 172? My favorite romance novel :) >I still prefer to err on the side of permissiveness -- a blank form >rather than a stack trace. > >Joe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
At 11:29 PM -0500 1/15/04, Ted Husted wrote: My only comment is that it seems we're throwing a lot of technology at a problem that could be solved by putting an empty DynaActionForm in the Struts config, and just referring to that. Perhaps something like: That doesn't solve the problem if you want to use html:input tags when you haven't created the form-beans yet. That's kind of a corner case, but we are gradually getting non-developers who can write JSPs and tags ok but haven't yet learned struts-config syntax. Eventually I hope that they will, and then this might not be so important. I still prefer to err on the side of permissiveness -- a blank form rather than a stack trace. Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
At 11:21 PM -0500 1/15/04, Ted Husted wrote: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:14:46 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote: Now, at the risk of sidetracking this discussion, I have to bring up my other Struts pet-peeve -- the over complexity of pre-filling forms from data rather than from the request. I'm wondering if bringing up some questions about how the form bean is looked up gives me a chance to scratch that itch too...? I don't think this is what you meant, but I've wondered whether the tags should check the request for a corresponding attribute if the formbean property returns null. Since I've adopted the "use strings as ActionForm properties", I don't have much use for this kind of solution, but it also just seems kind of complicated. I think the trickiest bit about getting the ActionForm for prefilling involves the dependency on ActionMappings in the API around getting form instances. Right now you need an ActionMapping to get a DynaActionForm, although the mapping is just used to look up the FormBeanConfig. Someone has probably suggested this before, but what about adding a "newInstance()" method to FormBeanConfig? From there, one could create an alternate method on RequestUtils: public static ActionForm createActionForm( HttpServletRequest request, String formName, String scope, ModuleConfig moduleConfig, ActionServlet servlet) presumably it's not asking too much to know the form's name if you intend to set properties on it, and besides, you need to know it so that you can put it in either request or session someplace where the form tag would find it. Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
The data not going to a form bean seem to be a 'very' limited use, especially with the ease of DynaActionForms. There already exists a fair amount of technology to handle this sort of situation. Additionally, the idea of struts was to put a framework around this. To compliciate the tags for this situation seems...like it should be thought about further. Edgar -Original Message- From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 11:21 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: RE: why are form beans required for html:form? On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:14:46 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote: > Now, at the risk of sidetracking this discussion, I have to bring > up my other Struts pet-peeve -- the over complexity of pre-filling > forms from data rather than from the request. I'm wondering if > bringing up some questions about how the form bean is looked up > gives me a chance to scratch that itch too...? I don't think this is what you meant, but I've wondered whether the tags should check the request for a corresponding attribute if the formbean property returns null. This could answer the case where the target property is not a String (or boolean). If the bean property is null, and the same property exists in the request, then we have the case where validation failed and the attribute could not be stored in the target property. If the tag then displayed the request attribute, we could have typed input field on ActionForms. (Essentially, we are using the request as our String buffer.) Though for consistency, a better idea (if this first idea is even good) would be to check the request for a corresponding attribute first, and then look to the formbean property if the attribute is absent. Again, this would let us use the request for an input buffer, and reserve the ActionForm for validated input. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
u, hmmm. This could answer the case where the target property is not a String (or boolean). imho, people who dont use strings exclusively in their AFs deserve whatever is coming to them... ;-> Seriously though, I dont think I like the idea of changing the form and view population methodology too much. to check the request for a corresponding attribute first, and then look to the formbean property if the attribute is absent. Again, this would let us use the request for an input buffer, and reserve the ActionForm for validated input Especially if this necessitates changes to the logic required to render the values out again. One of the advantages of keeping everything buffered in the ActionForm is that using a bean as the input buffer makes it nice and easy to find and render these values back into the html in pretty much all the rendering technologies. It also means even if you are using JSP (shudder) you dont have to stuff around checking several places for a value to render the field with when your not using struts tags. -Original Message- From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 16 January 2004 12:21 To: Struts Developers List Subject: RE: why are form beans required for html:form? On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:14:46 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote: > Now, at the risk of sidetracking this discussion, I have to bring > up my other Struts pet-peeve -- the over complexity of pre-filling > forms from data rather than from the request. I'm wondering if > bringing up some questions about how the form bean is looked up > gives me a chance to scratch that itch too...? I don't think this is what you meant, but I've wondered whether the tags should check the request for a corresponding attribute if the formbean property returns null. This could answer the case where the target property is not a String (or boolean). If the bean property is null, and the same property exists in the request, then we have the case where validation failed and the attribute could not be stored in the target property. If the tag then displayed the request attribute, we could have typed input field on ActionForms. (Essentially, we are using the request as our String buffer.) Though for consistency, a better idea (if this first idea is even good) would be to check the request for a corresponding attribute first, and then look to the formbean property if the attribute is absent. Again, this would let us use the request for an input buffer, and reserve the ActionForm for validated input. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
My only comment is that it seems we're throwing a lot of technology at a problem that could be solved by putting an empty DynaActionForm in the Struts config, and just referring to that. Perhaps something like: -Ted. On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:45:41 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote: > At 8:25 AM -0700 1/15/04, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think this is a great idea. We often use buttons on the form >> for navigation between inquiry/dispaly pages which requires that >> we use a default formbean. Maybe you could add the attributre to >> the action noded of the struts config file instead of making it a >> custom tag attribute? This would allow you to let the request >> processor do the check and instantiate a base/dummy action form. >> Then you wouldn't have to refactor the tag libraries? I suppose >> this might sound like a kluge. >> > > Gary: > > > which is the great idea? Using some config param to make the form > optional? Or just making it optional in general? I'm not sure > what the dummy form is for, unless the form wasn't optional. > > I'm wondering if I might not also like behavior that also let you > use HTML form tags in the absence of a backing form bean; just skip > the re-filling instead of throwing an error. That would allow us > to have non-programmers flesh out JSPs including forms with the > right Struts tags at any time ahead of programmers coming along and > implementing the form pieces. They're already familiar with > substituting for in production apps, but > they aren't ready to do a lot of struts-config work defining form > beans and action mappings. > > Would people object to reworking the form tags for more graceful > degradation at all levels in the absence of a form bean, instead of > exception throwing? > > Joe > > >> Gary VanMatre >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:09 AM >> To: Struts Developers List >> Subject: RE: why are form beans required for html:form? >> >> >> At 8:59 PM -0700 1/14/04, Richard Hightower wrote: >>> how about another attribute, i.e., >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> The checkFormBean defaults to true so it is backwards >>> compatible with >>> >> other >>> versions. >>> >>> >>> I like the idea that html:form checks for the form bean. It >>> makes it >>> >> easier >>> to debug the way it is. >>> However, I can see when you would not want that >>> >> >> Well, I'm figuring that if you actually NEED the form bean, then >> something else would throw an exception; presumably the first >> input tag which isn't backed by some explicitly named bean. >> >> I'd probably leave out the parameter in preference of error >> checking at the right spot. I think what Ted was getting at in >> his email was that other tags might not be doing good error >> checking because they've always deferred to html:form -- and yes, >> it would be bad to remove the check and then start having NPEs >> thrown that might be much harder to debug. >> >> Joe >> >> >> -- >> Joe Germuska >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://blog.germuska.com >> "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them >> the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, >> and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin >> >> -- >> --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> -- >> --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:14:46 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote: > Now, at the risk of sidetracking this discussion, I have to bring > up my other Struts pet-peeve -- the over complexity of pre-filling > forms from data rather than from the request. I'm wondering if > bringing up some questions about how the form bean is looked up > gives me a chance to scratch that itch too...? I don't think this is what you meant, but I've wondered whether the tags should check the request for a corresponding attribute if the formbean property returns null. This could answer the case where the target property is not a String (or boolean). If the bean property is null, and the same property exists in the request, then we have the case where validation failed and the attribute could not be stored in the target property. If the tag then displayed the request attribute, we could have typed input field on ActionForms. (Essentially, we are using the request as our String buffer.) Though for consistency, a better idea (if this first idea is even good) would be to check the request for a corresponding attribute first, and then look to the formbean property if the attribute is absent. Again, this would let us use the request for an input buffer, and reserve the ActionForm for validated input. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
At 12:25 PM -0500 1/15/04, Mike Jasnowski wrote: as long as it was clear, the distinction between a form bean missing because it "should" be there, and a form bean missing because it was "optional". I would think it might be better as a tag attr, because a form could be shared with different actions, and it might be sticky if it's optional for "some" but not all. But here we're just talking about how the JSP tags work; in the nightly builds, the first thing the tag does is try to find a form bean by looking up the action to which it will be submitted. This is what throws an exception now if no bean is found. So it's not so much whether the form bean is shared or not, but whether the specific "receiving" action expects to get a Form Bean or not. Within FormTag itself, this name is used to lookup a bean and put it into page scope for use by other form elements. Otherwise, it's only used to render the focus javascript, because to do the javascript you need a named form. I'd argue that if the "renderFocusJavascript()" method were called in the case when there were no form bean, that should throw a JspException. The Nested subclasses of FormTag use the name -- I have never really used the nested tags, so I'm not sure what the implications of not having any name is to them. For the other form elements, it generally seems the case that you could simply test for the presence of the form bean before doing the re-filling logic, and skip it when the bean is not defined. I'm not yet persuaded of the need for any configuration to support this; just changes to any tag classes which currently depend on the bean being defined. So far it seems like there aren't any strong objections, just some implementation details... but I'm not going to do anything about it just this minute (or even this week) so there's plenty of time for people to weigh in. Now, at the risk of sidetracking this discussion, I have to bring up my other Struts pet-peeve -- the over complexity of pre-filling forms from data rather than from the request. I'm wondering if bringing up some questions about how the form bean is looked up gives me a chance to scratch that itch too...? Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
Joe: I was lobbying for the optional form bean when using the struts tag. My suggestion was directed at an implementation strategy. Instead of adding the extra attribute to the , I thought it might be simpler to add a "default" attribute to the action xml definition. Or, a "reserved word" in the name attribute, maybe something like "default" (input="default"). The thought was that maybe the request processor, seeing this "flag" could just instantiate an org.apache.struts.action.ActionForm placing it in request scope. The tag would be happy because there was a formbean associated with the action. My perspective was not in terms of separation of roles of development. I see your argument as far as making it a feature of the jsp library as it relates to the evolution of html into a dynamic application. I felt this feature would be beneficial when creating inquiry pages and menu pages that you wanted to use submit buttons for navigation and still want to take advantage of the synchronization token and jsessionid that the custom form tag handles for you. Gary From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:46 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: RE: why are form beans required for html:form? At 8:25 AM -0700 1/15/04, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think this is a great idea. We often use buttons on the form for > navigation between inquiry/dispaly pages which requires that we use a > default formbean. Maybe you could add the attributre to the action noded >of the struts config file instead of making it a custom tag attribute? > This would allow you to let the request processor do the check and > instantiate a base/dummy action form. Then you wouldn't have to refactor >the tag libraries? I suppose this might sound like a kluge. Gary: which is the great idea? Using some config param to make the form optional? Or just making it optional in general? I'm not sure what the dummy form is for, unless the form wasn't optional. I'm wondering if I might not also like behavior that also let you use HTML form tags in the absence of a backing form bean; just skip the re-filling instead of throwing an error. That would allow us to have non-programmers flesh out JSPs including forms with the right Struts tags at any time ahead of programmers coming along and implementing the form pieces. They're already familiar with substituting for in production apps, but they aren't ready to do a lot of struts-config work defining form beans and action mappings. Would people object to reworking the form tags for more graceful degradation at all levels in the absence of a form bean, instead of exception throwing? Joe >Gary VanMatre > >-Original Message- >From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:09 AM >To: Struts Developers List >Subject: RE: why are form beans required for html:form? > >At 8:59 PM -0700 1/14/04, Richard Hightower wrote: >>how about another attribute, i.e., >> >>> >>The checkFormBean defaults to true so it is backwards compatible with >other >>versions. >> >> >>I like the idea that html:form checks for the form bean. It makes it >easier >>to debug the way it is. >>However, I can see when you would not want that > >Well, I'm figuring that if you actually NEED the form bean, then >something else would throw an exception; presumably the first input tag >which isn't backed by some explicitly named bean. > >I'd probably leave out the parameter in preference of error checking at >the right spot. I think what Ted was getting at in his email was that > other tags might not be doing good error checking because >they've always deferred to html:form -- and yes, it would be bad to > remove the check and then start having NPEs thrown that might be much > harder to debug. > >Joe > >-- >Joe Germuska >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://blog.germuska.com >"Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them >the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and > nobody thinks of complaining." > -- Jef Raskin > >- To >unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobo
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
as long as it was clear, the distinction between a form bean missing because it "should" be there, and a form bean missing because it was "optional". I would think it might be better as a tag attr, because a form could be shared with different actions, and it might be sticky if it's optional for "some" but not all. my 2 cents. -Original Message- From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:46 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: RE: why are form beans required for html:form? At 8:25 AM -0700 1/15/04, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think this is a great idea. We often use buttons on the form for >navigation between inquiry/dispaly pages which requires that we use a >default formbean. Maybe you could add the attributre to the action noded >of the struts config file instead of making it a custom tag attribute? >This would allow you to let the request processor do the check and >instantiate a base/dummy action form. Then you wouldn't have to refactor >the tag libraries? I suppose this might sound like a kluge. Gary: which is the great idea? Using some config param to make the form optional? Or just making it optional in general? I'm not sure what the dummy form is for, unless the form wasn't optional. I'm wondering if I might not also like behavior that also let you use HTML form tags in the absence of a backing form bean; just skip the re-filling instead of throwing an error. That would allow us to have non-programmers flesh out JSPs including forms with the right Struts tags at any time ahead of programmers coming along and implementing the form pieces. They're already familiar with substituting for in production apps, but they aren't ready to do a lot of struts-config work defining form beans and action mappings. Would people object to reworking the form tags for more graceful degradation at all levels in the absence of a form bean, instead of exception throwing? Joe >Gary VanMatre > >-Original Message- >From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:09 AM >To: Struts Developers List >Subject: RE: why are form beans required for html:form? > >At 8:59 PM -0700 1/14/04, Richard Hightower wrote: >>how about another attribute, i.e., >> >>> >>The checkFormBean defaults to true so it is backwards compatible with >other >>versions. >> >> >>I like the idea that html:form checks for the form bean. It makes it >easier >>to debug the way it is. >>However, I can see when you would not want that > >Well, I'm figuring that if you actually NEED the form bean, then >something else would throw an exception; presumably the first input tag >which isn't backed by some explicitly named bean. > >I'd probably leave out the parameter in preference of error checking at >the right spot. I think what Ted was getting at in his email was that >other tags might not be doing good error checking because >they've always deferred to html:form -- and yes, it would be bad to >remove the check and then start having NPEs thrown that might be much >harder to debug. > >Joe > >-- >Joe Germuska >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://blog.germuska.com >"Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them >the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and >nobody thinks of complaining." > -- Jef Raskin > >- To >unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
At 8:25 AM -0700 1/15/04, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this is a great idea. We often use buttons on the form for navigation between inquiry/dispaly pages which requires that we use a default formbean. Maybe you could add the attributre to the action noded of the struts config file instead of making it a custom tag attribute? This would allow you to let the request processor do the check and instantiate a base/dummy action form. Then you wouldn't have to refactor the tag libraries? I suppose this might sound like a kluge. Gary: which is the great idea? Using some config param to make the form optional? Or just making it optional in general? I'm not sure what the dummy form is for, unless the form wasn't optional. I'm wondering if I might not also like behavior that also let you use HTML form tags in the absence of a backing form bean; just skip the re-filling instead of throwing an error. That would allow us to have non-programmers flesh out JSPs including forms with the right Struts tags at any time ahead of programmers coming along and implementing the form pieces. They're already familiar with substituting for in production apps, but they aren't ready to do a lot of struts-config work defining form beans and action mappings. Would people object to reworking the form tags for more graceful degradation at all levels in the absence of a form bean, instead of exception throwing? Joe Gary VanMatre -Original Message- From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:09 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: RE: why are form beans required for html:form? At 8:59 PM -0700 1/14/04, Richard Hightower wrote: how about another attribute, i.e., The checkFormBean defaults to true so it is backwards compatible with other versions. I like the idea that html:form checks for the form bean. It makes it easier to debug the way it is. However, I can see when you would not want that Well, I'm figuring that if you actually NEED the form bean, then something else would throw an exception; presumably the first input tag which isn't backed by some explicitly named bean. I'd probably leave out the parameter in preference of error checking at the right spot. I think what Ted was getting at in his email was that other tags might not be doing good error checking because they've always deferred to html:form -- and yes, it would be bad to remove the check and then start having NPEs thrown that might be much harder to debug. Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
I think this is a great idea. We often use buttons on the form for navigation between inquiry/dispaly pages which requires that we use a default formbean. Maybe you could add the attributre to the action noded of the struts config file instead of making it a custom tag attribute? This would allow you to let the request processor do the check and instantiate a base/dummy action form. Then you wouldn't have to refactor the tag libraries? I suppose this might sound like a kluge. Gary VanMatre -Original Message- From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:09 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: RE: why are form beans required for html:form? At 8:59 PM -0700 1/14/04, Richard Hightower wrote: >how about another attribute, i.e., > > >The checkFormBean defaults to true so it is backwards compatible with other >versions. > > >I like the idea that html:form checks for the form bean. It makes it easier >to debug the way it is. >However, I can see when you would not want that Well, I'm figuring that if you actually NEED the form bean, then something else would throw an exception; presumably the first input tag which isn't backed by some explicitly named bean. I'd probably leave out the parameter in preference of error checking at the right spot. I think what Ted was getting at in his email was that other tags might not be doing good error checking because they've always deferred to html:form -- and yes, it would be bad to remove the check and then start having NPEs thrown that might be much harder to debug. Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
At 8:59 PM -0700 1/14/04, Richard Hightower wrote: how about another attribute, i.e., The checkFormBean defaults to true so it is backwards compatible with other versions. I like the idea that html:form checks for the form bean. It makes it easier to debug the way it is. However, I can see when you would not want that Well, I'm figuring that if you actually NEED the form bean, then something else would throw an exception; presumably the first input tag which isn't backed by some explicitly named bean. I'd probably leave out the parameter in preference of error checking at the right spot. I think what Ted was getting at in his email was that other tags might not be doing good error checking because they've always deferred to html:form -- and yes, it would be bad to remove the check and then start having NPEs thrown that might be much harder to debug. Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why are form beans required for html:form?
how about another attribute, i.e., mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:49 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: why are form beans required for html:form? Someone needs to try relaxing the requirement and see what happens to the input tags. Of course, the point of the exercise is really the input tags. The buttons are secondary. We don't want to complicate the input tags for this edge case. (Though, I don't know if it would be a complication or not.) Another idea would be a separate tag that could be used for formless forms [html:formless perhaps? :)] -Ted. On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:26:44 -0500, Sgarlata Matt wrote: > Joe - > > > I agree that html:form is being too aggressive in its requirement > of a form bean. I believe there is already an open BugZilla ticket > for this issue: > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24356 > > > Your reasoning is a little different than the reasoning in the > ticket, so it might be useful to include your email as a comment on > the bug. > > Matt > - Original Message - > From: "Joe Germuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: > Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: why are form beans > required for html:form? > > >> I'm working with an old Struts application recently ported to a >> Struts 1.2 nightly. One land mine that keeps popping up is that >> pages using the JSP tag which used to work now no >> longer do. I have one specific case where a developer chose not >> to implement an ActionForm class (probably because the app also >> pre-dated DynaForms and/or he was being lazy) so now the JSP >> throws an exception when it comes to the html:form tag and can't >> find a form bean associated with the destination action. >> >> Now, I'm all for encouraging people to use Struts the way it was >> designed to be used, but in this case, the form has no HTML >> fields which are pre-filled from a form bean, so it seems pushy >> of the html:form tag to insist that this is an error condition. >> >> Would it make more sense to have the individual input tags >> complain if they can't find a form bean, and have html:form be >> more permissive? >> >> Joe >> >> >> -- >> Joe Germuska >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://blog.germuska.com >> "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them >> the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, >> and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin >> >> -- >> --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why are form beans required for html:form?
Someone needs to try relaxing the requirement and see what happens to the input tags. Of course, the point of the exercise is really the input tags. The buttons are secondary. We don't want to complicate the input tags for this edge case. (Though, I don't know if it would be a complication or not.) Another idea would be a separate tag that could be used for formless forms [html:formless perhaps? :)] -Ted. On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:26:44 -0500, Sgarlata Matt wrote: > Joe - > > > I agree that html:form is being too aggressive in its requirement > of a form bean. I believe there is already an open BugZilla ticket > for this issue: > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24356 > > > Your reasoning is a little different than the reasoning in the > ticket, so it might be useful to include your email as a comment on > the bug. > > Matt > - Original Message - > From: "Joe Germuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: > Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: why are form beans > required for html:form? > > >> I'm working with an old Struts application recently ported to a >> Struts 1.2 nightly. One land mine that keeps popping up is that >> pages using the JSP tag which used to work now no >> longer do. I have one specific case where a developer chose not >> to implement an ActionForm class (probably because the app also >> pre-dated DynaForms and/or he was being lazy) so now the JSP >> throws an exception when it comes to the html:form tag and can't >> find a form bean associated with the destination action. >> >> Now, I'm all for encouraging people to use Struts the way it was >> designed to be used, but in this case, the form has no HTML >> fields which are pre-filled from a form bean, so it seems pushy >> of the html:form tag to insist that this is an error condition. >> >> Would it make more sense to have the individual input tags >> complain if they can't find a form bean, and have html:form be >> more permissive? >> >> Joe >> >> >> -- >> Joe Germuska >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://blog.germuska.com >> "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them >> the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, >> and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin >> >> -- >> --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why are form beans required for html:form?
Joe - I agree that html:form is being too aggressive in its requirement of a form bean. I believe there is already an open BugZilla ticket for this issue: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24356 Your reasoning is a little different than the reasoning in the ticket, so it might be useful to include your email as a comment on the bug. Matt - Original Message - From: "Joe Germuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: why are form beans required for html:form? > I'm working with an old Struts application recently ported to a > Struts 1.2 nightly. One land mine that keeps popping up is that > pages using the JSP tag which used to work now no longer > do. I have one specific case where a developer chose not to > implement an ActionForm class (probably because the app also > pre-dated DynaForms and/or he was being lazy) so now the JSP throws > an exception when it comes to the html:form tag and can't find a form > bean associated with the destination action. > > Now, I'm all for encouraging people to use Struts the way it was > designed to be used, but in this case, the form has no HTML fields > which are pre-filled from a form bean, so it seems pushy of the > html:form tag to insist that this is an error condition. > > Would it make more sense to have the individual input tags complain > if they can't find a form bean, and have html:form be more permissive? > > Joe > > -- > Joe Germuska > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blog.germuska.com >"Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them > the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and > nobody thinks of complaining." > -- Jef Raskin > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
