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]>