Ah hell, let's just use Irish notation and call it:
MeBigBagOStuffBean
;)
> -Original Message-
> From: Taylor, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 3:10 PM
> To: 'Struts Users Mailing List'
> Subject: RE: struts 2.0 na
x27;Struts Users Mailing List'
Subject: RE: struts 2.0 naming conventions?
> I'll agree to disagree if you will ;-)
I won't give up that easily! :D Seriously, my complaint stems from the
fact that it's just as valid to do the following to populate a (so-called)
"fo
It's better than that damn MonkeyBean, it will drive you bananas!
- Original Message -
From: "Eddie Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: struts 2.0 naming
Good Lord! They let *anyone* on this list talk, don't they?! ;-)
LOL ... I'm so glad this list is composed of the individuals it is :-)
James Mitchell wrote:
>+1 for SasquatchBean.
>
>Although debugging those can get.(dare I say)..hairy ?!?
>
>
>
>James Mitchell
>Software Engineer\Stru
form attribute. My 2 c.
-JT
-Original Message-
From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:30 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: struts 2.0 naming conventions?
Calling it "RequestParameterBean" causes a disconnect too. Call it what
it is
... and I don't really see where a "web-context" has anything to do with
a bean being called (and named) a bean ...
Obviously, if we wrote an application in C++, we probably wouldn't name
anything a bean (unless we had, say coffee beans we were modeling - may
likely have a bean in the class na
Bartley, Chris P [PCS] wrote:
>>I'll agree to disagree if you will ;-)
>>
>I won't give up that easily! :D Seriously, my complaint stems from the
>fact that it's just as valid to do the following to populate a (so-called)
>"form" bean (that has setBar() and setBaz() methods):
>
> Click me
>
>
ecause you built something worth critiquing. :)
peace,
Joe
> -Original Message-
> From: Bartley, Chris P [PCS] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:56 PM
> To: 'Struts Users Mailing List'
> Subject: RE: struts 2.0 naming conventions?
ruts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Struts Users Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: struts 2.0 naming conventions?
>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:16:53 -0500
>
>>Well, i think that people casually refer to it as a "form bean" beca
I would suggest it be done, yes. You can make certain assumptions about
a bean - having *Bean as a name immediately tells you certain things
about a class. Though, for the dynamic classes, I suppose it's less
appropriate ...
I'm cool with status quo :-) But, if change is about us - that's t
, with that, i'm done, and happy to agree to disagree. :)
chris
> -Original Message-
> From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:30 PM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: struts 2.0 naming conventions?
>
>
> Ca
appropriate as well. In this case, adding Bean to the end is
appropriate because it's not meant to be used outside of a web framework.
Dave
>From: Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Struts Users M
Calling it "RequestParameterBean" causes a disconnect too. Call it what
it is - we are OO folks after-all - a FormBean. It *is* intended to be
used with - though you may find it handy for other things.
Sorry :-) Let's not start a religious debate over expected convention.
I name things del
> Well, i think that people casually refer to it as a "form bean" because it's
> currently named "ActionForm". If the class had been named
> "RequestParametersBean" from the start, i doubt very much that today people
> would be calling it a "form bean". I think it's the word "form" in there
> th
m bean populated?").
chris
> -Original Message-
> From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:48 AM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: struts 2.0 naming conventions?
>
>
> FormBean
>
> Then, the name
ey, Chris P [PCS] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:16 PM
> To: 'Struts Users Mailing List'
> Subject: RE: struts 2.0 naming conventions?
>
>
> I'd add that even "Form" could be confusing to some. Based on
> the number o
FormBean
Then, the name of the class goes well with what people call it. You
don't have a disconnect. If we're changing names, this is the
convention I would use for this.
(
.. and then you could do:
- DynaActionFormBean
- DynaValidatorFormBean
- ...
I know i
I'd add that even "Form" could be confusing to some. Based on the number of
posts to this list, there appears to be a large percentage of new users who
don't understand that both GET and POST requests can populate a form bean
(and that you don't need a ... to do it).
I'm not sure what a good alt
18 matches
Mail list logo
