On Mon, February 14, 2005 1:47 pm, Hubert Rabago said: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:40:41 -0500 (EST), Frank W. Zammetti > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I probably forwarded it to the list as well, since it was an open >> discussion. Hope that wasn't a problem :) >> > > No problem at all, in fact I'd like it to go to the list to add to the > discussion. I haven't seen it on the list yet, though.
And I've been replying to so many messages today I can't say which I mistakenly didn't send to the list or vice-versa :) >> On Mon, February 14, 2005 1:26 pm, Hubert Rabago said: >> > Once we say "You can use POJOs as action forms", people will start >> > using their actual business objects. They'll start to skip >> > EmployeeForm, and specify Form directly. When that doesn't work, >> > they'll start to complain. In a way, we kinda have this already today >> > with BeanValidatorForm. >> >> Fair point. There's always a fine line between how much flexibility you >> give to a developer at the cost of giving them too much rope to hang >> themselves :) I generally fall on the side of "let'em blow both feet >> off >> if they want". But, it's absolutely a valid concern when your talking >> something as established as Struts. >> > > Same tendency here as far as giving the developers flexibility. > However, in this case, I think it'd be hard to make a case for a POJO > form bean that only supports Strings. At least with ActionForm, the > distinction was clear. If we're gonna put POJO support in Struts, I'd > vote for supporting it the way we'd want to use it - with full support > for typed fields. > > Hubert > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
