Hi,
I think you can define two names for one form.
<form-bean name="form1" type="test.CFormClass" /> <form-bean name="form2" type="test.CFormClass" />
This is true if you are coding your own form bean classes. If you are using dynaforms and validation, you can choose between two (awkwardly named) variations:
DynaValidatorForm: look up a validator configuration with the same name as the form-bean name (action-mapping name attribute).
DynaValidatorActionForm: look up a validator configuration with the same value as the action path (action-mapping path attribute).
This is a widely misunderstood situation, mostly because the names aren't very distinctive. The main use case I've come across for this would be if you had a form bean used both for creating and editing values.
Perhaps some values are required when creating and are not permitted to change when editing, so you'd need to have different validation configs.
Let's try a quick poll -- are these better names?
NameDynaValidatorForm for DynaValidatorForm PathDynaValidatorForm for DynaValidatorActionForm
If so, we could deprecate the old names and put in new ones.
If these aren't good, people are encouraged to suggest better names.
Joe
--
Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining."
-- Jef Raskin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
