y 2001 06:33
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ErrorsTag (was /contrib)
>
>
> I checked in the changes I've made. There is an
> html:messages tag that iterates through the errors and
> is basically the same as the tag I had in the
> validator class except for th
I checked in the changes I've made. There is an
html:messages tag that iterates through the errors and
is basically the same as the tag I had in the
validator class except for the changes that were
discussed. I've made an ActionMessages class and
ActionMessage class. ActionErrors now extends
Ac
This sounds good. I adding 'messages=true'. That
makes it easier to use than have to put in a long key
each time.
David
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Winterfeldt wrote:
> > This would work, but would it be confusing for a
> > general message tag to default to errors?
> Ori
David Winterfeldt wrote:
> This would work, but would it be confusing for a
> general message tag to default to errors? Originally
> when I did this I was thinking that for general
> messages there could be ActionMessage, ActionMessages,
> Action.MESSAGE_KEY, etc. And there would still be the
>
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> > Following this philosophy, we'd create a new tag
> (perhaps
> > ?) for the new functionality, and
> deprecate
> > . In addition, we'd need to change
> the 1.1 implementation of
> > so that it did something sensible,
>
