Thanks Joe. The little problem I'm having is that there isn't really a way to
initialize the reference to the value object. In other words, how to get the property
to reference the value object fetched by the Action. It's no big deal. Now that I
realize that it's not part of the philsophy of
At 4:03 PM -0400 2002/07/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I'm not proposing autopopulating anything -- the Action has to
fetch the value object anyway. I just want to reference it directly
using syntax like valueObject.name from my form tags... This
*avoids* aupopulating or having to synchronize
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
From: Vic C. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
We can solve the tech issues, if architecture makes sense as an altertive.
Techonlogy should not be just for the sake of technology.
The position last was that it is leightweight and people could apply it
as they see
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Struts-dev Newsgroup wrote:
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:25:01 -0700
From: Struts-dev Newsgroup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
Subject: Re: FormBeans
At 10:53 pm 12-06-2002 -0700, you wrote:
If you do that, just be aware that you are expressly violating the purpose
for which ActionForm was created in the first place, and are also
establishing a dependency in your model classes on both Struts and the
servlet API -- which can make such
At 09:54 pm 12-06-2002 -0700, you wrote:
Quite frankly, it baffles me when people want to use form beans as the
model. Doing this couples the model to the view in wholly undesirable ways.
For instance, what happens when the UI designer moves things around in the
pages in such a way that the
John Yu wrote:
To a certain extent, this consequence is 'historical'. If the formbean api
had been decided not to tie up to the Struts and servlet API, we would not
see this dependency problem. So, I think one outcome of this discussion is:
'does it make sense to correct this historical issue
At 05:38 am 13-06-2002 -0400, you wrote:
For populating a form, you can use whatever JavaBean you like. So if you
give your model bean the expected form-bean name, the tags will use it
without complaint. You can even populate the form using several
different beans. Just specify the bean's
John Yu wrote:
But, it is desirable that the object used for populating the form and the
object used for submitting from a form is the same one. Right?
It's desirable that the objects use the same property names, but after
that ... not so much. =:o)
What is coming up from the web is more
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, John Yu wrote:
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:18:31 +0800
From: John Yu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
At 09:54 pm 12-06-2002 -0700, you wrote
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
From: Vic C. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
Vic C. wrote:
OK so some people think I should preach FormBean as a View and not as a
Model, so here is ... why I do recommend FormBean as Model and you
should leave the door open.
( If you buy this
http
Struts-dev Newsgroup (@Basebeans.com) wrote:
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
From: Vic C. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
Vic C. wrote:
OK so some people think I should preach FormBean as a View and not as a
Model, so here is ... why I do recommend FormBean as Model and you
should
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
From: Vic C. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
Ted,
I still disagree. You can do those patterns, committers to Struts can do
those patterns, and I can do those patterns.
A corporate developer can't! They can do something simpler. They do db
tags and sql tags
-
From: Struts-dev Newsgroup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
From: Vic C. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
Vic C. wrote:
OK so some people think I should
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Struts-dev Newsgroup wrote:
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:25:02 -0700
From: Struts-dev Newsgroup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
Subject: Re: FormBeans
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
From: Vic C. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
Context:
Many intelligent people are implying that formbeans should never be a
model/data layer.
Thanks for the compliment :-).
You are welcome.
I agree with that if one does EJB with Struts.
However, I
Struts-dev Newsgroup (@Basebeans.com) wrote:
Ted,
I still disagree. You can do those patterns, committers to Struts can do
those patterns, and I can do those patterns.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, Vic.From a technical
standpoint, I actually granted your point. =:0)
If an
At 03:28 pm 12-06-2002 -0700, you wrote:
If you do that, just be aware that you are expressly violating the purpose
for which ActionForm was created in the first place, and are also
establishing a dependency in your model classes on both Struts and the
servlet API -- which can make such classes
Newsgroup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
From: Vic C. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
Martin,
thanks for a reply. Let me see if I can be more coherent
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Martin Cooper wrote:
Finally, I don't understand If people use JSTL Then use formbeans as
model. JSTL is very cool, and I plan on taking full advantage of it in
future apps, but I'm certainly not planning on using form beans as my model.
Perhaps you're referring
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, John Yu wrote:
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:53:59 +0800
From: John Yu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FormBeans ... as an Interface.
At 03:28 pm 12-06-2002 -0700, you wrote
21 matches
Mail list logo
