I think your suggestion on having one struts tag that emits any input type (like the html spec) is very flawed. Consider how huge that one tag would be if it knew how to output text, textarea, radio, checkbox, submit, and password fields. Each of the struts input tags have features unique to them and deserve to be separate.
Also, the struts tags need attributes for html AND beans, properties, etc. That's why you see attributes like styleClass instead of class. Who cares how many tld entries there are? This is a non-issue, especially in servlet 2.3 where you don't ever have to see the tlds. Even without 2.3, it's trivial to put struts-*.tld files in your /WEB-INF directory. David >From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: LabelTag >Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:28:50 -0700 (PDT) > > > >On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Edgar Dollin wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:12:12 -0400 > > From: Edgar Dollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: 'Struts Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: LabelTag > > > > My apologies for not understanding this particular issue. There are >some > > liberties that by necessity need to be taken with the tag library > > definitions, i.e. styleClass for class. I don't understand why someone > > would care if there are 'excess' tags in the tag library. I would never > > consider looking at the tag library to determine the availability of a >tag > > and if someone choose to use an attribute that is not supposed to be in >the > > html, html will (is supposed to) ignore it. > > > >I think XDoclet is cool, but the issue here is not extra tags -- it's >extra attributes. One of our primary design principles is that Struts >tags would only contain attributes that correspond to valid attribute >names (for that particular element) in HTML/4.01 -- whether the browser >ignores extra ones or not is irrelevant, since our goal is to not emit >invalid HTML. > > > My apologies in advance to the original struts designers as I assume >they > > had there reasons for the design choices. But, I have issues with the > > design of the 'html' equivalent struts tags. They are not constructed >the > > way the html specification is designed. For example in html there is >one > > tag for input with multiple types, in struts there are multiple tags >(all of > > which require tld entries). If the struts tags were constructed in a > > fashion which matched the html spec, then many of the issues with excess > > tags would go away. > > > >Can you provide a specific example of what you mean by "constructed in a >fashion which matched the HTML spec" and how you would suggest improving >them? Keep in mind (per my preceding response) that we don't have the >ability to modify the syntax of a TLD file, since that is defined by the >JSP Specification. All we can possibly do is refactor the underlying base >classes. > >And, even that effort seems less useful to me, if we really do migrate >towards using JSTL and JavaServer Faces in future versions of Struts. Of >course, that shouldn't stop anyone that wants to actually do the work >(imho after 1.1 final). > >Craig > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
