>I strongly agree with Daniel and Scott on this.-
>The time to make this kind of changes is now, no matter how much 0.92 code
>is going to be broken ( also the mine ).-
>Invoking ProcessRequest() or any other method you like with a scriplet, is
>not so terrible.-
>But, Scott, if I understood well, scriplets inside the body of
><jsp:useBean>
>are executed only when the bean is created,so:
>
><jsp:useBean id='login' class='com.caucho.login.Login' scope='session'>
> <% login.processRequest() %>
></jsp:useBean>
>
>will not work as desired, am I right?
>Walter Jerusalinsky
Yes, Walter is right. The body of a <jsp:useBean> is only for
initializing a newly created bean. If the bean already exists, it is
skipped. So to get the desired effect, one would need to use:
<jsp:useBean id='login' class='com.caucho.login.Login' scope='session' />
<% login.processRequest(request) %>
And while I also agree that the 1.0 spec shouldn't be constrained by
earlier revisions, I do think that the "1.0" numbering implies a certain
level of completeness. As a member of the "avoid scriplets wherever
possible" camp, I think that processRequest()--not to mention <LOOP>,
<INCLUDEIF>/<EXCLUDEIF>, and nested bean references--serve an important
role in improving the maintainability of JSP pages. By removing them
wholesale, 1.0 is less "complete" than 0.92 in certain respects.
This is not to say that they're aren't a lot of great improvements in
1.0, but at this point I am looking forward with great anticipation to
the tag extension mechanism promised for 1.1. It's looking like the
"pro-tag" camp may yet have its day... :)
- Mark
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JSP-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
