Actually, that's incorrect. I want to *read* from the
Role bean. I want to *write* to the form bean. I
just don't know how to go about it yet. :) It seems
like I have to read/write to the same form bean, which
doesn't make sense, because I don't have the form bean
until I get to the JSP page, so there's no way to
initialize it.
Thanks for the help,
Anthony Frasso
--- Puneet Lakhina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/30/06, Anthony N. Frasso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > public class Role {
> >
> > private int id;
> > private String name;
> > private String description;
> >
> > private boolean permissionA;
> > private boolean permissionB;
> > ...
> > private boolean permissionN;
> > }
> >
> > Each of those properties has getter and setter
> > methods. By the way, in the *actual* Role class,
> the
> > permission booleans are named such things as
> > "canAccessProjects" and "canEditCustomers" and
> other
> > such actual permissions, which is why I am not
> using
> > an array of booleans in this case. I want to
> refer to
> > them by name.
> >
> > Now I wanted to create a JSP that contained a
> form,
> > that allowed a user to edit a role. Here is the
> > definition of my form bean (called EditRoleForm):
> >
> > public class EditRoleForm extends ActionForm {
> >
> > private boolean roleId;
> > private boolean roleName;
> > private boolean roleDescription;
> >
> > private boolean rolePermissionA;
> > private boolean rolePermissionB;
> > ...
> > private boolean rolePermissionN;
> > }
>
>
> I kinda dont understand why do you need 2 beans as
> long as u only care about
> reading from them.
> you could have somehting like this in your form
> bean
> public class EditRoleForm extends ActionForm {
> Role role = new Role();
> /*getter method*/
> }
> and then in your jsp you have
>
> <html:text property="role.name" />
>
> Permission A: <html:checkbox
> property="role.permissionA" />
>
> you dont need to specify a value explicitly, it
> loads the field with
> whatever value the property has.
>
> In this instance, the form bean looks quite similar
> to
> > the role bean.
> >
> > In my JSP, I have the following:
> >
> > <html:form action="/EditRole" method="POST">
> > <table>
> > <tr>
> > <td>Name:</td>
> > <td><html:text property="name"
> > value="${role.name}" /></td>
> > </tr>
> > <tr>
> > <td>Description:</td>
> > <td><html:textarea
> property="roleDescription"
> >
> value="${role.description}"
> > /></td>
> > </tr>
> > <tr>
> > <td>Permission A:</td>
> > <td><html:checkbox
> property="rolePermissionA"
> > value="true" /></td>
> > </tr>
> > <tr>
> > <td>Permission B:</td>
> > <td><html:checkbox
> property="rolePermissionB"
> > value="true" /></td>
> > </tr>
> > ...
> > <tr>
> > <td>Permission N:</td>
> > <td><html:checkbox
> property="rolePermissionN"
> > value="true" /></td>
> > </tr>
> > <tr>
> > <td></td>
> > <td><html:submit value="Submit" /></td>
> > </table>
> > </html:form>
> >
> > As you can see, all of the checkboxes are going to
> be
> > initialized blank. I would instead prefer them to
> be
> > initialized with the value in the role within the
> > request scope. I was able to do this using the
> > "value" parameter in the text and textarea tags,
> but
> > the value parameter is used differently for the
> > checkbox tag.
> >
> > I hope this clears it up.
> >
> > One final note: After reading everyone's
> responses,
> > and also reading around on the web, I seem to be
> > getting an idea that the name of the property in
> the
> > Role bean and the Form bean should be identical,
> and
> > this is the way it is able to initialize the value
> in
> > the checkbox, and also set the correct value in
> the
> > form bean when it is submitted. This seems like a
> bad
> > idea. For one, how do we know that there is a
> > one-to-one mapping of beans to form beans? If I'm
> > modifying a few beans all on the same JSP page, I
> > certainly don't want there to be confusion.
> >
> > I hope I've made myself clear, and I look forward
> to
> > everyone's response. I really appreciate the time
> and
> > effort everyone has taken in helping me out thus
> far.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Anthony Frasso
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Puneet
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
