This is probably obvious, but you can choose to validate other than in the ActionForm, which I do, and not validate in the Action as well, which I also do. I leave validation to a validation application which sits between the business logic and the view for me.
Jack On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:33:08 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hijack alert! > > At 11:09 AM -0500 3/18/05, Rick Reumann wrote: > >Well, actually I like to have my own validate() method in each of my > >Dispatch Actions. I don't like having the framework call validate > >for me. One of the main reason is that if I'm in my action and I > >manually call my own action's validate() method then, if validation > >fails, I can make sure my prep method is always called. I wrote > >about this here http://reumann.net/struts/articles/request_lists.jsp > >and at the end I give an example of what I like to do. (I'm curious, > >in that approach you came up with, if validation were to fail, would > >the extra 'setup' that you added to the action mapping be called? If > >so, that would be very nice! if not then I'd still end up having to > >use my prep/set up method). > > This is one of the reasons I like a design which associates prep > logic with the destination (forward) instead of the action/request. > > If that's the only reason you validate in your actions instead of in > the framework, maybe you'd like it too... > > Joe > > -- > Joe Germuska > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blog.germuska.com > "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
