I definitely agree about changing "name" to "formBean". Name really doesn't describe what the attribute does. However, "type" is pretty clear once you remove "name".
Dave >From: John Nicholas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Struts Users Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: struts 2.0 naming conventions? >Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:16:53 -0500 > >>Well, i think that people casually refer to it as a "form bean" because >>it's >>currently named "ActionForm". If the class had been named >>"RequestParametersBean" from the start, i doubt very much that today >>people >>would be calling it a "form bean". I think it's the word "form" in there >>that's causing so much confusion for newbies (and at least part of the >>reason why there are so many questions that read something like "how can i >>call my action from a link and still have my form bean populated?"). > >I'll agree with this, that would have made it more clear for me in the >beginning. > >I'd like to see 2 changes in the struts-config.xml > >1) treat action Classes like ActionForms with a separate definitions >section. I find it odd that I the section to logically name the ActionForms >and have a full class name for the Action. > >2) change the parameter names for the action so it like this > <action > path="/stub" > actionclass="StubAction" <-- was type="" now logical name > formbean="StubForm" <-- was name="" > scope="request" > validate="true" > input="/WEB-INF/pages/stub.jsp"> > >I was confused by the action's name parameter not being the action > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
