> -----Original Message----- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@;apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 1:14 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: RE: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards" > > I'm not open to modifying fundamental behavior like this in > 1.x, even when > the old behavior is demonstrably wrong (as you could probably > contend in > this scenario). We've made way too many promises that > compatibility is an > important core value to break them on stuff like this.
Yes, I've been swayed (as if it matters :-) in this regard. +1 as well. **BUT** DynaActionForms have not shipped yet, they are in beta! They are not 1.1 yet. Anyone that is relying on them did so at their own risk. Significantly different semantics for reset() under the different forms is a bug, and it should be fixed, so long as it's a part of the framework. I'm willing to write the howto, but I am going to document this as a misfeature. http://www.mail-archive.com/struts-dev@;jakarta.apache.org/msg10846.html "Since ActionForms work with the current reset semantics and DynaActionForms don't, it's follows that it's a bug in DynaActionForms. DynaActionForms are new to 1.1, and 1.1 has not shipped yet, so it's something that can be fixed in 1.1. " "Make DynaActionForm.reset() the same as ActionForm.reset(), take the code that was there, make it a new routine, call that routine from the constructor. Document the stuff so it's clear what's going on." "If there's agreement, I'll submit patches." -b -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
