Personally, I consider DynaActionForms and JSTL as top bullets for 1.1. But if means delaying the release, well.....you know.
James Mitchell Software Engineer/Struts Evangelist http://www.open-tools.org "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) > -----Original Message----- > From: Karr, David [mailto:david.karr@;attws.com] > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 3:14 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Accessing DynaActionForm objects in JSTL tags? > > > I'm asking this here first, to discuss the technical issues. If > it appears > to be feasible, I'll ask a similar question on the user list, and then > perhaps write a bug report. > > Presently JSTL tags can't easily access DynaActionForm objects. I haven't > used these much, but I would assume they're reasonably widely used. How > important do you think it is for JSTL tags to be able to access properties > of these objects? > > I believe there's a simple change we could make to DynaActionForm to allow > access to them from JSTL tags. Since DynaActionForm doesn't present a > strict JavaBeans interface to its properties, you can't access them > normally. However, the property values are stored in a HashMap in the > DynaActionForm. The JSTL EL syntax can access hashmap entries. So, if we > simply added a standard JavaBeans accessor for the HashMap, then the JSP > programmer could access these properties through a syntax like this: > > value='${actionForm.dyna["foo"]}' > > for the "foo" property of the "actionForm" DynaBean. > > Note that this now provides an additional access path to the DynaBean > properties. I don't know if that creates a problem. > > I have not completely analyzed the current code in DynaActionForm, wrt how > it currently retrieves and sets values, to see if there's anything > inconsistent with accessing the values as direct values from the > HashMap. I > have also not yet written a line of code to implement or test this. > > The first question is can this be done? Second, should it be done? And > third, should it be done pre- or post-1.1? > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
