----- Original Message ----- From: "Mainguy, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Struts Users Mailing List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:35 PM Subject: BeanMapping WAS: [Poll] action mappings
> I think your way is perfectly acceptable. I like to try and use the > supplied interfaces (i.e. DynaBean) if they suit my needs and, to date, > DynaBean has served me well. You can use BeanUtils to map DynaBeans to > POJO's and visa versa (as a matter of fact you can to it to/from maps also > I believe). After working with DynaBeans some more, I agree with you. I am going to use them as my type for transfer objects as well instead of the strategy I outlined before where I defined my own IInputForm and IDynaInputForm interfaces. > My only gripe with using the commons-beanutils would be that I would perhaps > like to have a couple levels of DynaBean and perhaps at the simplest level > only have an interface like you describe (i.e. fewer methods in implement). I would like to see an empty interface called org.apache.commons.beanutils.Bean, but I can see that being a huge point of contention so I'm not going to press for it. Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
