"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
>
> Both formats are perfectly acceptable.
>
> Which version of JSWDK are you using? Version 1.0 had a horrible bug here -- the
> implementation required you to say "imports" instead of "import" to be recognized,
> but it didn't complain about "import" by itself. You really want to get the
> latest and greatest version if you're using 1.0, both for this bug fix and for
> some others.
Are you sure? My take is that it must be a fully qualified name, since if the
bean is not found the full name is needed to create it (with something like
Class.forName(beanClassName).newInstance() ).
Hans
> Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> > hello,
> >
> > got a quick question. do i have to use the full package name when using
> > <jsp:useBean> tag, or can i do a <@ page import> and include the package
> > names in that like with regular old java programming?
> >
> > this is what i want to do:
> >
> > <%@ page import="com.wondergeek.util.*" %>
> > ...
> > ...
> > ...
> > <jsp:useBean name="Test" class="RandomString" scope="session">
> > ...
> > ...
> >
> > instead of this:
> >
> > <jsp:useBean name="Test" class="com.wondergeek.util.RandomString"
> > scope="session">
> >
> > jswdk seems to only let me do the latter. is the former possible?
> >
> > thanks in advance for the help...
> >
> > cheers,
> > chris
--
Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe: mailto [EMAIL PROTECTED] with body: "signoff JSP-INTEREST".
FAQs on JSP can be found at:
http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/faq.html
http://www.esperanto.org.nz/jsp/jspfaq.html
