In the next version of struts, will there be some thought given
to the naming conventions of naming the main classes in struts?
Calling everything ActionThis and Actionthat is really confusing the
new user.
ActionForm could just be Form for example etc.
Thank You for your time.
--
Vincent
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 10:46 AM
To: Struts Users
Subject: struts 2.0 naming conventions?
In the next version of struts, will there be some thought given
to the naming conventions of naming the main classes in struts?
Calling everything ActionThis
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
] [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 of
posts to this list, there appears to be a large percentage of new
users
: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:48 AM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: struts 2.0 naming conventions?
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
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
that's causing
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 html:form - though you may find it handy for other things.
Sorry :-) Let's not start a religious debate over expected convention.
I name
. 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 Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: struts 2.0 naming conventions
, 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?
Calling it RequestParameterBean causes a disconnect too.
Call
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
[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 because
it's
currently named ActionForm. If the class had been named
RequestParametersBean from the start, i doubt very much that today
because 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?
I'll agree to disagree
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):
a
... 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
-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 - we are OO folks after-all - a FormBean
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\Struts
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 conventions?
Good Lord! They let *anyone
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)
form bean (that has setBar() and setBaz() methods
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 naming conventions?
what about
19 matches
Mail list logo
