Re: parameter vs. set-property (was Re: Flexible form support)

2003-08-16 Thread Robert Leland
Sgarlata Matt wrote: Robert Leland wrote: Sgarlata Matt wrote: What do you think? Would this be a reasonable enhancement request? Can I post it in BugZilla with patches? Since you have talked about it on the struts-user group, and it looks like the existing system makes your life harder,

Re: parameter vs. set-property (was Re: Flexible form support)

2003-08-16 Thread Sgarlata Matt
Robert Leland wrote: Sgarlata Matt wrote: What do you think? Would this be a reasonable enhancement request? Can I post it in BugZilla with patches? Since you have talked about it on the struts-user group, and it looks like the existing system makes your life harder, then open a Bugzilla requ

Re: parameter vs. set-property (was Re: Flexible form support)

2003-08-16 Thread Robert Leland
Sgarlata Matt wrote: Ted Husted wrote: IMHO, the "general purpose" parameter has been a useful feature of ActionConfig/ActionMapping and is worth applying elsewhere. We just have to be quick to remind people that if they outgrow the general purpose parameter, then they should start extending t

parameter vs. set-property (was Re: Flexible form support)

2003-08-16 Thread Sgarlata Matt
Ted Husted wrote: IMHO, the "general purpose" parameter has been a useful feature of ActionConfig/ActionMapping and is worth applying elsewhere. We just have to be quick to remind people that if they outgrow the general purpose parameter, then they should start extending the base object and usin