On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Ted Husted wrote: > Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 07:00:52 -0400 > From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Flexible form support (was Re: Simplifying DynaActionForms) > > Steve Raeburn wrote: > > The problem with adding a 'parameter' is that you then find a need for > > another parameter, etc etc. Is <set-property> not suitable here? Or, even > > better, nested configuration elements under form-bean. > > Yes, set-property would work here, just like everywhere else. I'm just > saying that if action has a general-purpose "parameter", then maybe > form-bean and forward should have one too. People would not then have to > extend action-forward or form-bean every time they wanted to try > something out. > > IMHO, the "general purpose" parameter has been a useful feature of > ActionConfig/ActionMapping and is worth applying elsewhere. We just have > to be quick to remind people that if they outgrow the general purpose > parameter, then they should start extending the base object and using > set-property. (As people often do now.) >
+1 > -Ted. > > Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
