> -----Original Message----- > From: James Higginbotham [mailto:jhigginbotham@;betweenmarkets.com] > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 6:47 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: RE: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards" > > > I have always been of this mindset, since before nice things like the > servlet API or NetDynamics sessions and such (pre-servlet), request is > all you had. My main beef is the rewriting of each field into hidden > fields that are not part of a step within a wizard scenario. For > formbeans of any normal magnitude (say 5 properties), its not > a problem. > But then, you usually don't have wizards for forms that small (or at > least large ones). But, for a wizard of say 5 pages, each page has to > rewrite as hidden fields all properties not editable on that page.
You have to decide where you want to be bitten. ;-) Yes, you may end up writing a bunch of hidden fields. But if you don't, then you're filling up valuable memory with session data, potentially reducing the number of concurrent users your application can support. -- Martin Cooper > > Anyone written or seen an elegant solution to this? > > James > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:20 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards" > > > > > > +1 on defaulting to request scope at some point. It's easier > > for people > > +to > > learn even though it is easy to change the default behavior. > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Subject: Re: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards" > > >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:18:09 -0500 > > > > > >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. > > > > > >-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> > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:struts-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
