> -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Husted [mailto:husted@;apache.org] > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 6:18 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards" > > > The ActionForm is pluggable, and we have always shipped with one > implementation that defaults to session and another that defaults > to request. > > I believe that originally we used session since that was liable to > cause the least amount of confusion. Then we got into the habit of > using reset to clear everything, which caused all the same > confusion session scope might avoid (where did my values go?). > > Request might be a better default. Since it is pluggable, we might > also be able to change it sooner than 2.0.x if we wanted.
I don't believe we should be changing this before a 2.x release. It will instantly cause backwards compatibility problems for existing apps which do not override the default, which is a Bad Thing (TM). IMNSHO, breaking backwards compatibility is tolerable on a change in major version number, but not on anything less. -- Martin Cooper > > -Ted. > > > 11/11/2002 7:05:22 PM, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I remember someone kind of scoffing at us defaulting forms to > session > >scope -- and adding further that request is really what we should > have > >gone with. They further added that this functionality could not > be > >easily changed, since there were so many Struts apps deployed > that > >undoubtedly relied on the behavior. > > > >So ... is this something to slate for 2.0? :-) (if we even > still > >*have* the notion of a form-bean!) > > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
