On 06/28/2010 03:06 AM, Thomas Menke wrote: > > >> It's great that Ben and Aaron assisted in helping you resolve this >> offline and as such I am not sure what caveats and disclaimers they >> attached to your following this approach (which I imagine there were >> some or plenty)... . Though personally I think framework Developers >> should discourage their user community from relying on such specific >> implementation details of the framework especially when it depends on >> something as fluid as length of a variable name. >> > Well, it was not quite that offline, but IRC instead. They said > something similar to "I don't think that this will be changed in future > versions". >
I can tell you that the binding order will not change in the future. It can't or the binding system won't work. Here's why it won't change: Let's say you've got a property "foo" and a property "foo.bar". If YourActionBean.getFoo() returns null then Stripes will attempt to create a Foo and call YourActionBean.setFoo(foo). If the binding order wasn't guaranteed and foo.bar was bound before foo, Stripes would have created an empty Foo so that it could set foo.bar. Then Stripes would bind foo which would overwrite the new foo with foo.bar set. We do need to document this somewhere on the site because it's an important feature of they binding system. Aaron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Stripes-users mailing list Stripes-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stripes-users
