Re: Why is there DynaValidatorActionForm and DynaValidatorForm??

[Ted Husted]

Yes, I would say that keying on the action attribute is the default approach, and keying on the path would be the alternative.

James Holmes wrote:

Ok, so should we update DynaValidatorForm and
deprecate DynaValidatorActionForm?

-james


--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

It's a little odd. Somebody wanted to key on the action path rather than the attribute, and so David accomodated by providing the other class.
A better way to go would be some type of switch as we have for whether action input is a path or a forward name.

-Ted.

10/23/2002 11:17:09 AM, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Just curious why there are 2 classes?

Seems like the

DynaValidatorActionForm could go away.

It simply

overrides the validate() method in the

parent.  Why

do we need 2 implementations of validate

()?

-james


_________________________________________

_________

Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your

web site

http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:struts-

[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

For additional commands, e-mail:

<mailto:struts-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>