huh. I have more of a problem with the tag attribute names than anything else. I can't even count how many questions have been posed to this list about <html:options> and other tags that could have been eliminated with more carefully named attributes. AFAIK, there are no plans to change this in upcoming Struts versions.
I know the tag class inheritance argument, re-use, etc., please spare me. Sometimes, for clarity's sake, you just gotta bite the bullet and copy some code. ;P ...oh yeah, if any contributors are reading this, thanks for a wonderful framework...I only offer criticism because you built something worth critiquing. :) peace, Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: Bartley, Chris P [PCS] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:56 PM > To: 'Struts Users Mailing List' > Subject: RE: struts 2.0 naming conventions? > > > > I'll agree to disagree if you will ;-) > > I won't give up that easily! :D Seriously, my complaint > stems from the > fact that it's just as valid to do the following to populate > a (so-called) > "form" bean (that has setBar() and setBaz() methods): > > <a href="/foo.do?bar=1&baz=2">Click me</a> > > Where's your "form" now? ;) You don't see a disconnect there? > > See, my whole point is that the primary purpose of these beans is to > encapsulate parameters sent via an HTTP GET or POST request. > And we all > (hopefully) know that an HTML <form> isn't the only way to make such a > request. > > So, with that, i'm done, and happy to agree to disagree. :) > > chris > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:30 PM > > To: Struts Users Mailing List > > Subject: Re: struts 2.0 naming conventions? > > > > > > Calling it "RequestParameterBean" causes a disconnect too. > > Call it what > > it is - we are OO folks after-all - a FormBean. It *is* > > intended to be > > used with <html:form> - though you may find it handy for > other things. > > > > Sorry :-) Let's not start a religious debate over expected > > convention. > > I name things deliberately by their expected context. > > Following this > > convention "FormBean" is not only an acceptable name, but a very > > descriptive one. It states that it is a bean which models a > > form. Is > > this not why we have them? Good OO tells us to name things > > after their > > real-world counterparts to avoid a disconnect - thus Form is a good > > name. Java convention for naming beans is to append Bean > to the name > > (so the name is indicative of it's attributes). Putting the two > > together ... well, I'm beating a dead horse ... :-) > > > > I thought your complaint was that there were too many Action* > > classes ... > > > > I really think the conventions I state are sound. You can't > > expect to > > be able to determine a classes full function just by > looking at it's > > name -- that is why we have javadocs, etc ... I know people > > gripe about > > the quality of documentation, but I seriously wonder how > many of the > > have truly taken the time to actually *look* at the javadocs. > > > > I'll agree to disagree if you will ;-) > > > > Bartley, Chris P [PCS] wrote: > > > > >No, my point is that any use of the word "form" in the name > > of the class is > > >potentially confusing because apparently sometimes people > > mistakenly think > > >"Oh, i have to use a <form>...</form> in the page that calls > > this action". > > > > > >>Then, the name of the class goes well with what people call > > it. You > > >>don't have a disconnect. > > >> > > > > > >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?"). > > > > > >chris > > > > > > > -- > > Eddie Bush > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
