#x27;t making struts configuration simpler
IMO - I'd lobby to keep these and not deprecate them at the moment.
Niall
- Original Message -
From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2
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 reus
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 actuall
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 3:10 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: JavaScriptTag and multiple forms.
>
>
> > > If you did that, how would it know whether to use the
On Apr 4, 2004, at 2:11 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
Now that the four flavours of validator form (ValidatorForm,
ValidatorActionForm, DynaValidatorForm, DynaValidatorActionForm) have a
getValidatorKey() method, maybe the JavaScriptTag should get hold of
these
and call the getValidatorKey() - that
removed?
Then no coupling at all.
Niall
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Leland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 5:35 PM
Subject: JavaScriptTag and multiple forms.
> Every since I applied the patch to allow the validator
I guess it's because the term 'Action' has become seriously over-used.
On 04/04/2004 11:48 AM Adam Hardy wrote:
On 04/04/2004 01:10 AM Joe Germuska wrote:
What if you were using ValidatorActionForm/DynaValidatorActionForm
instead of ValidatorForm/DynaValidatorForm? Then the server side
valid
On 04/04/2004 01:10 AM Joe Germuska wrote:
What if you were using ValidatorActionForm/DynaValidatorActionForm
instead of ValidatorForm/DynaValidatorForm? Then the server side
validation rules are looked up based on the path, not the name. With
the form classes, this can be encapsulated cleanly
> If you did that, how would it know whether to use the 'path' or the
'name' to look up the validation rules?
Wouldn't it alway use the 'name' it looked up from the given action ?
Is there a time it would ever use the 'path' ? I guess I don't understand ?
What if you were using ValidatorActionFor
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Germuska > At 4:35 PM + 4/3/04, Robert Leland wrote:
> >Every since I applied the patch to allow the validator to work,
> >with multiple forms, there has been one thing that has bothered me:
> >
> >The JavaScriptTag requires the name of the form.
> >
>
At 4:35 PM + 4/3/04, Robert Leland wrote:
Every since I applied the patch to allow the validator to work,
with multiple forms, there has been one thing that has bothered me:
The JavaScriptTag requires the name of the form.
So now both the form name and the action name are required in the
JSP,
Every since I applied the patch to allow the validator to work,
with multiple forms, there has been one thing that has bothered me:
The JavaScriptTag requires the name of the form.
So now both the form name and the action name are required in the JSP, and this
increases the coupling.
How about
12 matches
Mail list logo
