On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:22:40 -0500 (EST), Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip/> > Also, if making Actions POJOs is the way to go, I'd say the same should be > true of ActionForms too.
This would bring up a whole different set of expectations. For one thing, once actionforms become POJOs, people would expect that they can use any property type, including those that need formatting/parsing. We still need that cache for invalid values (such as the 1a3 entered for a numeric field). > Question: does a Command actually have to > implement the Command interface? >From my limited study of commons-chain, the answer is yes. [Inline OT] I think *this* is where it makes more sense to allow POJOs. I took a look at this a couple of months ago to determine if I can use this for a project of mine, but realized I couldn't when it required that all commands implement a specific interface. <snip/> > I'd personally say it's only really a POJO when I'm not forced to extend > OR implement anything. I'd agree. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
