Yep, I saw that one, and will take care of it. -- Martin Cooper
> -----Original Message----- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 11:56 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: RE: The 'name' and 'type' attributes on the <html:form> tag > > > Martin, > > While you are messing around with FormTag, you might want to > swat 11387 at > the same time. It's part of our cleanup of tags to make them > work right > in a tag instance recycling container. > > Craig > > > On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Martin Cooper wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 11:48:43 -0700 > > From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: 'Struts Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: The 'name' and 'type' attributes on the <html:form> tag > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 11:26 AM > > > To: Struts Developers List > > > Subject: Re: The 'name' and 'type' attributes on the > <html:form> tag > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Martin Cooper wrote: > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 11:17:12 -0700 > > > > From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Subject: The 'name' and 'type' attributes on the <html:form> tag > > > > > > > > Bugzilla #11330 points out that the 'name' and 'type' > > > attributes on the > > > > <html:form> tag no longer work. I've been looking at this, > > > and a couple of > > > > issues came up. In particular, these two values are no > > > longer sufficient to > > > > locate/create any potential form bean - particularly > > > dynamic form beans. > > > > > > > > However, I believe we need to reinstate the old mechanism > > > to preserve > > > > backwards compatibility with Struts 1.0.x. Therefore, I > > > plan to add back > > > > *exactly* the old mechanism for when 'name' and 'type' are > > > specified, > > > > meaning that this usage will not have any additional > > > functionality over > > > > Struts 1.0.x, and specifically will not work for the > > > creation of dynamic > > > > beans. I also plan on documenting these attributes as > > > deprecated starting > > > > with Struts 1.1 (although there isn't a way to really > deprecate tag > > > > attributes, as far as I am aware). > > > > > > > > > > +1. > > > > > > One thing I would suggest is to use > > > RequestUtils.applicationInstance() to > > > actually create the bean instance for you -- it does the > > > necessary grunt > > > work to get an applcation class out of the webapp, even if > > > struts.jar is > > > in a parent class loader. > > > > Yes, I saw that while looking at createActionForm(), and > was planning on > > using it. > > > > > > > > I guess I'd better go back and put support for a <deprecated> > > > element into > > > our stylesheet too :-). > > > > Already done, I see. Thanks! > > > > -- > > Martin Cooper > > > > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Martin Cooper > > > > > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
