LOL, one could argue the same position about racism, religion, and politics, but it never seems to make much difference at resolving problems. (The jest wouldn't scare me if you weren't a committer :-)
A number of people with less knowledge of the particulars have wasted more than enough time on this problem. They aren't stupid, they just don't focus their lives on DynaActionForms. This problem bothered me, so I decided to do something about it. I'd like to see a resolution to it now that I have sunk my teeth into it. Hopefully we all get a chance to know each other better in the process! best, -b > -----Original Message----- > From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 12:09 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Changes for 2.0 (RE: Unclear semantics on form use for > "wizards") > > > You could argue that the way DynaActionForms work is how > they're supposed > to, so it's not a bug ;-). > > David > > > > > > > >From: "Brian Topping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: Changes for 2.0 (RE: Unclear semantics on form use for > >"wizards") > >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:37:02 -0500 > > > >Oh, okay, same as it was. > > > >Point taken on 2.0 now after rereading your initial post, mea culpa. > > > >Since ActionForms work with the current reset semantics and > DynaActionForms > >don't, it's follows that it's a bug in DynaActionForms. > DynaActionForms > >are > >new to 1.1, and 1.1 has not shipped yet, so it's something > that can be > >fixed > >in 1.1. > > > >Make DynaActionForm.reset() the same as ActionForm.reset(), > take the code > >that was there, make it a new routine, call that routine from the > >constructor. Document the stuff so it's clear what's going on. > > > >If there's agreement, I'll submit patches. > > > >-b > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com] > > > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 10:50 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Changes for 2.0 (RE: Unclear semantics on > form use for > > > "wizards") > > > > > > > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/status.html > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Brian Topping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Subject: Changes for 2.0 (RE: Unclear semantics on form use > > > for "wizards") > > > >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:13:07 -0500 > > > > > > > >2.0 seems to actually be the *ideal* time to change this. > > > Major version > > > >change is where major changes occur. Otherwise we should > > > wait until 3.0. > > > > > > > >1.1 is the release that is still being worked on, right? > > > I've been out of > > > >the loop for a few months here. Searching mail-archive > > > doesn't return any > > > >results, but that's probably because it's parsing what I > am typing. > > > > > > > >I'd also like to advance the case that 1.x releases and 2.0 > > > releases are > > > >concurrent and 1.x put into maintenance mode for the > people that are > > > >concerned about compatibility. (I swear I hope that > this hasn't been > > > >discussed already!!) > > > > > > > >best, > > > > > > > >-b > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 10:00 PM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: RE: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Request scoped forms don't need to implement reset(). Ted > > > > > has stated that > > > > > Session scoped forms only need to reset checkboxes. If > > > > > that's the case, > > > > > maybe there is a symantically clearer method we could use. > > > > > Many apps depend > > > > > on the current reset behavior so this couldn't be changed > > > > > before 2.0 if at > > > > > all. > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Brian Topping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >Subject: RE: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards" > > > > > >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:56:32 -0500 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@;apache.org] > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The missing link for a multi-page form is some way to tie > > > > > > > which page got > > > > > > > submitted to the set of properties that live on that page > > > > > > > (and therefore > > > > > > > need to be reset. > > > > > > > > > > > >As David Graham said: "Interesting, but then you're creating > > > > > a programming > > > > > >language in XML. I think this logic should be in code." > > > > > > > > > > > >Occam's Razor (oh-so-trendy these days) would have it that > > > > > the developer > > > > > >knows best when a form needs to be reset and to let them > > > > > call it. Clearly, > > > > > >reset() needs to be called whenever a form is instantiated > > > > > to get default > > > > > >values, but it should not be called by the framework. If > > > > > the form is in > > > > > >request scope, the form will be created on Action > > > > > invocation, semantically > > > > > >implying reset(). If the form is session based and not > > > a part of the > > > > > >session, it is created and reset() is called. If the form > > > > > is a part of the > > > > > >session already, it is left alone. > > > > > > > > > > > >Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > >-b > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > >For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. > > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > >For additional commands, e-mail: > > > ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > >-- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: > ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > >For additional commands, e-mail: > ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
