Re: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm?
DynaActionForms as cool as they are are more trouble than they're worth unless its a small simple form. For one thing you don't find out what's wrong until runtime. I just use strings for dynaaction forms as it works, the problems our in part caused (i think) by the conversions done by beanutils (org.apache.commons.beanutils). Validator validates stuff even of type string. if/when you use action forms, the typing issues are less of a pain. I know that its discouraged according to the party line. But then those aren't the folks paying you are they. Part of the problem is that action forms are strongly coupled to the presentation layer, but sometimes its handy to be able to copy the properties from your model beans to the servlet layer. Often this means having both groups of beans looking pretty much the same, but some MVC purists claim this is the devils work as you're not decoupling enough. While I symathise with this position, its often not pragmatic to go down this route at an early stage of a project. In fact I've been known to nest model beans in action forms, and re-factor later to decouple, while I know this breaks with MVC the folks paying for work don't really give a toss whether its mvc or not. I'm not saying break with the world according to these folks who know better than me, but just that sometimes its important to understand their focus is different to some of us. While they're laying out road maps for future technologies, publishing books and suchlike. We're stuck in an is and ought dilemma, between clients/bosses and trying to craft the best app we can. So IMO careful what you believe or you might end up trying to find the holy grail of tech development, while your productivity suffers. My 2 pence. On 17 Dec 2003, at 14:24, Engbers, ir. J.B.O.M. wrote: Hi, Both 'Struts in Action' and 'Programming Jakarta Struts' state that ActionForms and DynaActionForms are nearly equivalent and the main advantage of using DynaActionForms is that you don't have to declare all the getters and setters. In DynaAction Forms each property can be of a (array of a) primitive types. Thanks to Pedro Salgado and Martin Gainty (see Retrieving boolean properties from a DynaActionForm on december 16), I partially succeeded in solving the first problem which only confronted me with the next problem :-( And while looking for a solution to that problem, I found a bugreport (23355) in which Craig states that 'Adding these (getInteger, getBoolean etc, Ben) would encourage a behavior that Struts discourages -- using non-String data types in a form bean.' Maybe that this explains why I have only found examples that use String-properties (which lead me to my first question: where can I find examples that use non_string properties?) but it leaves me with the more fundamental question: Why do DynaActionForms offer the possibility to declare non-String properties without supporting them? Should I avoid using DynaActionForms at all and use the DynaValidatorForm? Ben Engbers - 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: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm?
To address the fundemental question, it is considered a best practice to only use String or Boolean objects or collections of String and/or Boolean objects or collection of data structures which contain String and/or Boolean objects in your forms. This is because it gives you more control over validation. This doesn't mean that DynaActionForms or any DynaForm for that matter doesn't support non-string types. It supports any Object because essentially the DynaXXXForms internal data structure is a Map. In general the Struts form should be a ValueObject passing immutable data from the input to be processed or passing immutable data to the output to be rendered. The great thing about Struts is that it gives you more than enough rope to use wisely or hang yourself :) robert -Original Message- From: Engbers, ir. J.B.O.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm? Hi, Both 'Struts in Action' and 'Programming Jakarta Struts' state that ActionForms and DynaActionForms are nearly equivalent and the main advantage of using DynaActionForms is that you don't have to declare all the getters and setters. In DynaAction Forms each property can be of a (array of a) primitive types. Thanks to Pedro Salgado and Martin Gainty (see Retrieving boolean properties from a DynaActionForm on december 16), I partially succeeded in solving the first problem which only confronted me with the next problem :-( And while looking for a solution to that problem, I found a bugreport (23355) in which Craig states that 'Adding these (getInteger, getBoolean etc, Ben) would encourage a behavior that Struts discourages -- using non-String data types in a form bean.' Maybe that this explains why I have only found examples that use String-properties (which lead me to my first question: where can I find examples that use non_string properties?) but it leaves me with the more fundamental question: Why do DynaActionForms offer the possibility to declare non-String properties without supporting them? Should I avoid using DynaActionForms at all and use the DynaValidatorForm? Ben Engbers - 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: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm?
No one's suggesting that anyone hangs them selves or that struts isn't good. But the fact that this list sees a high influx of newbies, getting battered with high-brow design concepts which while are very interesting have a certain chocolate fire guard quality to them . Easiest thing is to make all the form properties strings, or like has been suggested, non primitives. It was certainly the case a few months ago that to use dynaaction forms then it was just less bother to use strings. Sure nesting model objects in action forms does take the piss a bit, but its nothing that cant be sorted when clients/non tech bosses have stopped wetting themselves about image swaps.. Cheers Mark On 17 Dec 2003, at 15:27, Robert Taylor wrote: To address the fundemental question, it is considered a best practice to only use String or Boolean objects or collections of String and/or Boolean objects or collection of data structures which contain String and/or Boolean objects in your forms. This is because it gives you more control over validation. This doesn't mean that DynaActionForms or any DynaForm for that matter doesn't support non-string types. It supports any Object because essentially the DynaXXXForms internal data structure is a Map. In general the Struts form should be a ValueObject passing immutable data from the input to be processed or passing immutable data to the output to be rendered. The great thing about Struts is that it gives you more than enough rope to use wisely or hang yourself :) robert -Original Message- From: Engbers, ir. J.B.O.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm? Hi, Both 'Struts in Action' and 'Programming Jakarta Struts' state that ActionForms and DynaActionForms are nearly equivalent and the main advantage of using DynaActionForms is that you don't have to declare all the getters and setters. In DynaAction Forms each property can be of a (array of a) primitive types. Thanks to Pedro Salgado and Martin Gainty (see Retrieving boolean properties from a DynaActionForm on december 16), I partially succeeded in solving the first problem which only confronted me with the next problem :-( And while looking for a solution to that problem, I found a bugreport (23355) in which Craig states that 'Adding these (getInteger, getBoolean etc, Ben) would encourage a behavior that Struts discourages -- using non-String data types in a form bean.' Maybe that this explains why I have only found examples that use String-properties (which lead me to my first question: where can I find examples that use non_string properties?) but it leaves me with the more fundamental question: Why do DynaActionForms offer the possibility to declare non-String properties without supporting them? Should I avoid using DynaActionForms at all and use the DynaValidatorForm? Ben Engbers - 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: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm?
Mark, Perhaps I am getting old, but the meaning of your metaphors went over my head. On the other hand, this is an international audience. What is a chocolate fire guard? Do you believe it is harder or easier to use DynaActionForms instead of Strings? Is taking the piss a bit a good thing or a bad thing? Thank you, Ed - Original Message - From: Mark Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:33 AM Subject: Re: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm? No one's suggesting that anyone hangs them selves or that struts isn't good. But the fact that this list sees a high influx of newbies, getting battered with high-brow design concepts which while are very interesting have a certain chocolate fire guard quality to them . Easiest thing is to make all the form properties strings, or like has been suggested, non primitives. It was certainly the case a few months ago that to use dynaaction forms then it was just less bother to use strings. Sure nesting model objects in action forms does take the piss a bit, but its nothing that cant be sorted when clients/non tech bosses have stopped wetting themselves about image swaps.. Cheers Mark On 17 Dec 2003, at 15:27, Robert Taylor wrote: To address the fundemental question, it is considered a best practice to only use String or Boolean objects or collections of String and/or Boolean objects or collection of data structures which contain String and/or Boolean objects in your forms. This is because it gives you more control over validation. This doesn't mean that DynaActionForms or any DynaForm for that matter doesn't support non-string types. It supports any Object because essentially the DynaXXXForms internal data structure is a Map. In general the Struts form should be a ValueObject passing immutable data from the input to be processed or passing immutable data to the output to be rendered. The great thing about Struts is that it gives you more than enough rope to use wisely or hang yourself :) robert -Original Message- From: Engbers, ir. J.B.O.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm? Hi, Both 'Struts in Action' and 'Programming Jakarta Struts' state that ActionForms and DynaActionForms are nearly equivalent and the main advantage of using DynaActionForms is that you don't have to declare all the getters and setters. In DynaAction Forms each property can be of a (array of a) primitive types. Thanks to Pedro Salgado and Martin Gainty (see Retrieving boolean properties from a DynaActionForm on december 16), I partially succeeded in solving the first problem which only confronted me with the next problem :-( And while looking for a solution to that problem, I found a bugreport (23355) in which Craig states that 'Adding these (getInteger, getBoolean etc, Ben) would encourage a behavior that Struts discourages -- using non-String data types in a form bean.' Maybe that this explains why I have only found examples that use String-properties (which lead me to my first question: where can I find examples that use non_string properties?) but it leaves me with the more fundamental question: Why do DynaActionForms offer the possibility to declare non-String properties without supporting them? Should I avoid using DynaActionForms at all and use the DynaValidatorForm? Ben Engbers - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm?
Hi Ed On 17 Dec 2003, at 15:49, Ed Dowgiallo wrote: Mark, Perhaps I am getting old, but the meaning of your metaphors went over my head. On the other hand, this is an international audience. What is a chocolate fire guard? a fire guard is like a shield one places in front of a fire to prevent any bits of hot ash escaping and setting one's house on fire. These are usually made of metal as it is fire proof. A fireguard made of chocolate wouldn't be much use, as it would melt and no protect one's house from the peril of smoldering ash. Do you believe it is harder or easier to use DynaActionForms instead of Strings? A few months ago it was certainly the case that using strings when using dynaaction forms was the only sure way of getting stuff running. But robert sound like he's been using objects in there and sounds good to me, I thing that beanutils has problems with BigDecimal and perhaps other objects but I dont remeber the details. I haven't used dynaforms in a while cos i dont like the way you have to wait until runtime to see whether there's a problem. Is taking the piss a bit a good thing or a bad thing? Its another why of saying, taking the mickey , or making fun of something.. It used to be the case in victorian times in england that urine would fetch enough money for a decent meal. As urine was used for cosmetic and medical purposes by the affluent classes urine would be exchanged by poorer folks for a financial reward. Thus the phrase was born taking the piss its also where spending a penny came from also. Cheers Mark Thank you, Ed - Original Message - From: Mark Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:33 AM Subject: Re: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm? No one's suggesting that anyone hangs them selves or that struts isn't good. But the fact that this list sees a high influx of newbies, getting battered with high-brow design concepts which while are very interesting have a certain chocolate fire guard quality to them . Easiest thing is to make all the form properties strings, or like has been suggested, non primitives. It was certainly the case a few months ago that to use dynaaction forms then it was just less bother to use strings. Sure nesting model objects in action forms does take the piss a bit, but its nothing that cant be sorted when clients/non tech bosses have stopped wetting themselves about image swaps.. Cheers Mark On 17 Dec 2003, at 15:27, Robert Taylor wrote: To address the fundemental question, it is considered a best practice to only use String or Boolean objects or collections of String and/or Boolean objects or collection of data structures which contain String and/or Boolean objects in your forms. This is because it gives you more control over validation. This doesn't mean that DynaActionForms or any DynaForm for that matter doesn't support non-string types. It supports any Object because essentially the DynaXXXForms internal data structure is a Map. In general the Struts form should be a ValueObject passing immutable data from the input to be processed or passing immutable data to the output to be rendered. The great thing about Struts is that it gives you more than enough rope to use wisely or hang yourself :) robert -Original Message- From: Engbers, ir. J.B.O.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm? Hi, Both 'Struts in Action' and 'Programming Jakarta Struts' state that ActionForms and DynaActionForms are nearly equivalent and the main advantage of using DynaActionForms is that you don't have to declare all the getters and setters. In DynaAction Forms each property can be of a (array of a) primitive types. Thanks to Pedro Salgado and Martin Gainty (see Retrieving boolean properties from a DynaActionForm on december 16), I partially succeeded in solving the first problem which only confronted me with the next problem :-( And while looking for a solution to that problem, I found a bugreport (23355) in which Craig states that 'Adding these (getInteger, getBoolean etc, Ben) would encourage a behavior that Struts discourages -- using non-String data types in a form bean.' Maybe that this explains why I have only found examples that use String-properties (which lead me to my first question: where can I find examples that use non_string properties?) but it leaves me with the more fundamental question: Why do DynaActionForms offer the possibility to declare non-String properties without supporting them? Should I avoid using DynaActionForms at all and use the DynaValidatorForm? Ben Engbers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm?
Hi Ed I've checked my spellings this time. On 17 Dec 2003, at 15:49, Ed Dowgiallo wrote: Mark, Perhaps I am getting old, but the meaning of your metaphors went over my head. On the other hand, this is an international audience. What is a chocolate fire guard? A fire guard is like a shield one places in front of a fire to prevent any bits of hot ash escaping and setting one's house on fire. These are usually made of metal as it is fire proof. A fireguard made of chocolate wouldn't be much use, as it would melt and not protect one's house from the peril of smoldering ash. Do you believe it is harder or easier to use DynaActionForms instead of Strings? A few months ago it was certainly the case that using strings when using dynaaction forms was the only sure way of getting stuff running. But robert sounds like he's been using objects in there and sounds good to me, I think that beanutils has problems with BigDecimal and perhaps other objects but I dont remeber the details. I haven't used dynaforms in a while because i dont like the way you have to wait until runtime to see whether there's a problem. Is taking the piss a bit a good thing or a bad thing? Its another why of saying, taking the mickey , or making fun of something.. It used to be the case in victorian times in england that urine would fetch enough money for a decent meal. As urine was used for cosmetic and medical purposes by the affluent classes, urine would be exchanged by poorer folks for a financial reward. Thus the phrase was born taking the piss its also where spending a penny came from. Cheers Mark Thank you, Ed - Original Message - From: Mark Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:33 AM Subject: Re: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm? No one's suggesting that anyone hangs them selves or that struts isn't good. But the fact that this list sees a high influx of newbies, getting battered with high-brow design concepts which while are very interesting have a certain chocolate fire guard quality to them . Easiest thing is to make all the form properties strings, or like has been suggested, non primitives. It was certainly the case a few months ago that to use dynaaction forms then it was just less bother to use strings. Sure nesting model objects in action forms does take the piss a bit, but its nothing that cant be sorted when clients/non tech bosses have stopped wetting themselves about image swaps.. Cheers Mark On 17 Dec 2003, at 15:27, Robert Taylor wrote: To address the fundemental question, it is considered a best practice to only use String or Boolean objects or collections of String and/or Boolean objects or collection of data structures which contain String and/or Boolean objects in your forms. This is because it gives you more control over validation. This doesn't mean that DynaActionForms or any DynaForm for that matter doesn't support non-string types. It supports any Object because essentially the DynaXXXForms internal data structure is a Map. In general the Struts form should be a ValueObject passing immutable data from the input to be processed or passing immutable data to the output to be rendered. The great thing about Struts is that it gives you more than enough rope to use wisely or hang yourself :) robert -Original Message- From: Engbers, ir. J.B.O.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm? Hi, Both 'Struts in Action' and 'Programming Jakarta Struts' state that ActionForms and DynaActionForms are nearly equivalent and the main advantage of using DynaActionForms is that you don't have to declare all the getters and setters. In DynaAction Forms each property can be of a (array of a) primitive types. Thanks to Pedro Salgado and Martin Gainty (see Retrieving boolean properties from a DynaActionForm on december 16), I partially succeeded in solving the first problem which only confronted me with the next problem :-( And while looking for a solution to that problem, I found a bugreport (23355) in which Craig states that 'Adding these (getInteger, getBoolean etc, Ben) would encourage a behavior that Struts discourages -- using non-String data types in a form bean.' Maybe that this explains why I have only found examples that use String-properties (which lead me to my first question: where can I find examples that use non_string properties?) but it leaves me with the more fundamental question: Why do DynaActionForms offer the possibility to declare non-String properties without supporting them? Should I avoid using DynaActionForms at all and use the DynaValidatorForm? Ben Engbers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm?
Thank you for the translation. ;-) Ed - Original Message - From: Mark Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 11:11 AM Subject: Re: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm? Hi Ed I've checked my spellings this time. On 17 Dec 2003, at 15:49, Ed Dowgiallo wrote: Mark, Perhaps I am getting old, but the meaning of your metaphors went over my head. On the other hand, this is an international audience. What is a chocolate fire guard? A fire guard is like a shield one places in front of a fire to prevent any bits of hot ash escaping and setting one's house on fire. These are usually made of metal as it is fire proof. A fireguard made of chocolate wouldn't be much use, as it would melt and not protect one's house from the peril of smoldering ash. Do you believe it is harder or easier to use DynaActionForms instead of Strings? A few months ago it was certainly the case that using strings when using dynaaction forms was the only sure way of getting stuff running. But robert sounds like he's been using objects in there and sounds good to me, I think that beanutils has problems with BigDecimal and perhaps other objects but I dont remeber the details. I haven't used dynaforms in a while because i dont like the way you have to wait until runtime to see whether there's a problem. Is taking the piss a bit a good thing or a bad thing? Its another why of saying, taking the mickey , or making fun of something.. It used to be the case in victorian times in england that urine would fetch enough money for a decent meal. As urine was used for cosmetic and medical purposes by the affluent classes, urine would be exchanged by poorer folks for a financial reward. Thus the phrase was born taking the piss its also where spending a penny came from. Cheers Mark Thank you, Ed - Original Message - From: Mark Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:33 AM Subject: Re: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm? No one's suggesting that anyone hangs them selves or that struts isn't good. But the fact that this list sees a high influx of newbies, getting battered with high-brow design concepts which while are very interesting have a certain chocolate fire guard quality to them . Easiest thing is to make all the form properties strings, or like has been suggested, non primitives. It was certainly the case a few months ago that to use dynaaction forms then it was just less bother to use strings. Sure nesting model objects in action forms does take the piss a bit, but its nothing that cant be sorted when clients/non tech bosses have stopped wetting themselves about image swaps.. Cheers Mark On 17 Dec 2003, at 15:27, Robert Taylor wrote: To address the fundemental question, it is considered a best practice to only use String or Boolean objects or collections of String and/or Boolean objects or collection of data structures which contain String and/or Boolean objects in your forms. This is because it gives you more control over validation. This doesn't mean that DynaActionForms or any DynaForm for that matter doesn't support non-string types. It supports any Object because essentially the DynaXXXForms internal data structure is a Map. In general the Struts form should be a ValueObject passing immutable data from the input to be processed or passing immutable data to the output to be rendered. The great thing about Struts is that it gives you more than enough rope to use wisely or hang yourself :) robert -Original Message- From: Engbers, ir. J.B.O.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Newbie: java.lang.boolean and DynaActionForm? Hi, Both 'Struts in Action' and 'Programming Jakarta Struts' state that ActionForms and DynaActionForms are nearly equivalent and the main advantage of using DynaActionForms is that you don't have to declare all the getters and setters. In DynaAction Forms each property can be of a (array of a) primitive types. Thanks to Pedro Salgado and Martin Gainty (see Retrieving boolean properties from a DynaActionForm on december 16), I partially succeeded in solving the first problem which only confronted me with the next problem :-( And while looking for a solution to that problem, I found a bugreport (23355) in which Craig states that 'Adding these (getInteger, getBoolean etc, Ben) would encourage a behavior that Struts discourages -- using non-String data types in a form bean.' Maybe that this explains why I have only found examples that use String-properties (which lead me to my first question: where can I find examples that use
