Thanks Joe. The little problem I'm having is that there isn't really a way to
initialize the reference to the value object. In other words, how to get the property
to reference the value object fetched by the Action. It's no big deal. Now that I
realize that it's not part of the philsophy of th
At 4:03 PM -0400 2002/07/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>(I'm not proposing autopopulating anything -- the Action has to
>fetch the value object anyway. I just want to reference it directly
>using syntax like valueObject.name from my form tags... This
>*avoids* aupopulating or having to synchroni
(I'm not proposing autopopulating anything -- the Action has to fetch the value object
anyway. I just want to reference it directly using syntax like valueObject.name from
my form tags... This *avoids* aupopulating or having to synchronize any object since
the ActionForm just references the val
In Struts 1.1 this can be avoid by using DynaActionForms or map-backed
ActionForms.
This makes the ActionForms much easier to maintain (or even
maintenance-free), without causing the type-conflicts and validation
issues that are endemic once you starting trying to autopopulate a
conventional valu
Thanks for the nice reply.
I wouldn't think of it as Struts dictating the structure of the value object. In
practice, when a user is editing something, the thing almost always corresponds to an
object. That's the way the objects were modeled in the first place -- by doing
use-case analysis, et
If you can design your ActionForms to share the same property names (or
"protocol") as your data transfer objects, then it does become very easy
for an application to develop a standard, automatic way to populate the
DTO from the ActionForm properties.
But since this is "pretty easy", there just
You state:
> The ActionForm contains a *proposed*
> state change to the model or one of
> its beans. As Web developers, it's
> our job to confirm that the state
> change is reasonable (validate the
> input) and ~then~ update the model.
Using a value object would be a standard way of handling
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Struts-dev Newsgroup wrote:
> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:25:01 -0700
> From: Struts-dev Newsgroup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
From: "Vic C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===
We can solve the tech issues, if architecture makes sense as an altertive.
Techonlogy should not be just for the sake of technology.
The position last was that it is leightweight and people could a
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, John Yu wrote:
> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:18:31 +0800
> From: John Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
John Yu wrote:
> But, it is desirable that the object used for populating the form and the
> object used for submitting from a form is the same one. Right?
It's desirable that the objects use the same property names, but after
that ... not so much. =:o)
What is coming up from the web is more th
At 05:38 am 13-06-2002 -0400, you wrote:
>For populating a form, you can use whatever JavaBean you like. So if you
>give your model bean the expected form-bean name, the tags will use it
>without complaint. You can even populate the form using several
>different beans. Just specify the bean's att
John Yu wrote:
> Not dispute about this. But, you can view it from the other angle:
>
> In my case, I want to use something from the model as the formbeans, not
> the other way round (as we all know having a model->view dependency is
> bad). However, because of the way formbean is designed in Str
John Yu wrote:
> To a certain extent, this consequence is 'historical'. If the formbean api
> had been decided not to tie up to the Struts and servlet API, we would not
> see this dependency problem. So, I think one outcome of this discussion is:
> 'does it make sense to "correct" this historical
At 09:54 pm 12-06-2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Quite frankly, it baffles me when people want to use form beans as the
>model. Doing this couples the model to the view in wholly undesirable ways.
>
>For instance, what happens when the UI designer moves things around in the
>pages in such a way that the
At 10:53 pm 12-06-2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> > >If you do that, just be aware that you are expressly violating the purpose
> > >for which ActionForm was created in the first place, and are also
> > >establishing a dependency in your model classes on both Struts and the
> > >servlet API -- which
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, John Yu wrote:
> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:53:59 +0800
> From: John Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Martin Cooper wrote:
>
> Finally, I don't understand "If people use JSTL Then use formbeans as
> model". JSTL is very cool, and I plan on taking full advantage of it in
> future apps, but I'm certainly not planning on using form beans as my model.
> Perhaps you're refer
y* the design is the way it is.)
--
Martin Cooper
> -Original Message-
> From: Struts-dev Newsgroup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
>
>
> Subject: Re: FormB
At 03:28 pm 12-06-2002 -0700, you wrote:
>If you do that, just be aware that you are expressly violating the purpose
>for which ActionForm was created in the first place, and are also
>establishing a dependency in your model classes on both Struts and the
>servlet API -- which can make such class
"Struts-dev Newsgroup (@Basebeans.com)" wrote:
> Ted,
>
> I still disagree. You can do those patterns, committers to Struts can do
> those patterns, and I can do those patterns.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, Vic.From a technical
standpoint, I actually granted your point. =:0)
If
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
From: "Vic C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===
>>Context:
>>Many intelligent people are implying that formbeans should never be a
>>model/data layer.
>>
>
>
> Thanks for the compliment :-).
>
You are w
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Struts-dev Newsgroup wrote:
> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:25:02 -0700
> From: Struts-dev Newsgroup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
From: "Vic C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===
Martin,
thanks for a reply. Let me see if I can be more coherent and then ask
you a question please.
Context:
Many intelligent people are implying that formbeans should never be a
model/data lay
Message-
> From: Struts-dev Newsgroup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
>
>
> Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
> From: "Vic C." <[EMAIL PROT
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
From: "Vic C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===
Ted,
I still disagree. You can do those patterns, committers to Struts can do
those patterns, and I can do those patterns.
A corporate developer can't! They can do something simpler. The
"Struts-dev Newsgroup (@Basebeans.com)" wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
> From: "Vic C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ===
> Vic C. wrote:
> > OK so some people think I should preach FormBean as a View and not as a
> > Model
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
From: "Vic C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===
Vic C. wrote:
> OK so some people think I should preach FormBean as a View and not as a
> Model, so here is ... why I do recommend FormBean as Model and you
> should leave the door
28 matches
Mail list logo
