Could you just have the DynaActionForm expose a Map as a property? If it
implemented, for example, a method like: "public Map getProperties();" you
could do this:
<c:out value='${form.properties["aProperty"]}'/>
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:26 PM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: RE: DynaActionForm and JSTL (was RE: DynaActionForm
> Advantages)
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Jennings, Christofer J. wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 11:19:05 -0700
> > From: "Jennings, Christofer J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: Struts Users Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 'Struts Users Mailing List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: RE: DynaActionForm and JSTL (was RE:
> DynaActionForm Advantages)
> >
> > My mistake. I was thinking DynaActionForm is a Map.
> >
> > It'd be a shame to not be able to use JSTL and
> DynaActionForm together (I
> > think). As a general question, How much work would it be to have a
> > MappedDynaActionForm subclassing DynaActionForm as an
> optional base class
> > for our forms?
> >
>
> I'm going to take a look at the possibility of making DynaActionForm
> itself implement Map -- if it makes them usable with JSTL expressions,
> that would be pretty compelling.
>
> > ,boz
>
> Craig
>
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:43 AM
> > To: Struts Users Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: DynaActionForm and JSTL (was RE:
> DynaActionForm Advantages)
> >
> >
> > This would only work if ${form} implemented the Map interface.
> >
> > Making the DynaBean interface extend the Map interface seems like a
> > lot of overkill considering the number of places people
> might want to
> > use it that have nothing to do with the JSTL...
> >
> > Maybe you could make a case for having DynaActionForm implement Map,
> > with a bunch of unsupported operations and delegating to the values
> > hash otherwise. It's still kind of cluttered, but at least it's off
> > in Struts serving a specific need, instead of in beanutils.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > At 8:19 AM -0700 2002/07/09, Jennings, Christofer J. wrote:
> > >Looking at the JSTL 1.0 specification, section 3.3, leads
> me to believe
> > that
> > >DynaActionForm "properties" can be accessed through the
> JSTL EL but with a
> > >different syntax than a regular JavaBean property.
> > >
> > >Example:
> > > Regular JavaBean (e.g., ActionForm) EL syntax:
> > > <c:out value="${form.aProperty}"/>
> > > <c:out value="${form.aProperty.aSubProperty}"/>
> > > Map (e.g., DynaActionForm) EL syntax:
> > > <c:out value='${form["aProperty"]}'/>
> > > <c:out value='${form["aProperty"].aSubProperty}'/>
> > >
> > >If anyone has done this sort of thing I'd sure like to
> know how it works.
> > >Especially how/if accessing "aSubProperty".
> > >
> > >I'm stuck using a container that can't support JSTL and
> I'm also not using
> > >Struts 1.1 yet either so I can't confirm any of this.
> > >
> > ><c:out value='${me["2cents"]}'/>,
> > >boz
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 6:19 PM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: RE: DynaActionForm Advantages
> >
> >
> >But are DynaActionForm's compatible with JSTL?
> >
> >A discussion on taglibs-user made me think not:
> >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=taglibs-user&m=102433015725228&w=2
> >
> >Eddie
>
>
> --
> --
> * Joe Germuska { [EMAIL PROTECTED] }
> "It's pitiful, sometimes, if they've got it bad. Their eyes get
> glazed, they go white, their hands tremble.... As I watch them I
> often feel that a dope peddler is a gentleman compared with the man
> who sells records."
> --Sam Goody, 1956
> tune in posse radio: <http://www.live365.com/stations/289268>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
