Yes naming is important. See one of Craig's old posts
<
http://www.mail-archive.com/struts-user@jakarta.apache.org/msg02933.html
>
with which I totally agree.
In the heat of development, less than optimum names are sometimes
chosen. With open development, the next day, the nightly release lets
the genie out of the bottle, and changing the names becomes a Big Deal.
Personally, I would be open to a coherent discussion of a new attribute
naming scheme that ran up and down the framework. But someone would have
to take the lead on this, and put together a key of all the Struts
attributes, and suggestions for alternatives.
Before long, we will be making some other drastic changes to accomodate
the standard tablibs. So we might start thinking in terms of a Struts 2
that would support those, and refactor other underpinnings.
-Ted.
> Jonathan wrote:
>
> Hello all. As I get deeper into using struts I am noticing how the
> naming of attributes seems needlessly vague. In the struts-config.xml
> for example. When marking up an action, why is the attribute name for
> the form bean called "name" instead of "beanName", and why is
> "validate" used instead of "validateBean". It seems unnecessarily
> ambiguous as to whether we are describing the action or the bean.
> This ambiguity continues in logic iterate tags and other tags as
> well. As a consequence, a user is not exactly sure to which object or
> concept an attribute pertains to. Does anyone know why Struts was
> desiged like this and continues to exist as such? Besides, xml was
> desiged to be descriptive. Why are we being vague?
