Joe: I was lobbying for the optional form bean when using the struts <html:form> tag. My suggestion was directed at an implementation strategy. Instead of adding the extra attribute to the <html:form>, I thought it might be simpler to add a "default" attribute to the action xml definition. Or, a "reserved word" in the name attribute, maybe something like "default" (input="default"). The thought was that maybe the request processor, seeing this "flag" could just instantiate an org.apache.struts.action.ActionForm placing it in request scope. The <html:form> tag would be happy because there was a formbean associated with the action.
My perspective was not in terms of separation of roles of development. I see your argument as far as making it a feature of the jsp library as it relates to the evolution of html into a dynamic application. I felt this feature would be beneficial when creating inquiry pages and menu pages that you wanted to use submit buttons for navigation and still want to take advantage of the synchronization token and jsessionid that the custom form tag handles for you. Gary From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:46 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: RE: why are form beans required for html:form? At 8:25 AM -0700 1/15/04, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think this is a great idea. We often use buttons on the form for > navigation between inquiry/dispaly pages which requires that we use a > default formbean. Maybe you could add the attributre to the action noded >of the struts config file instead of making it a custom tag attribute? > This would allow you to let the request processor do the check and > instantiate a base/dummy action form. Then you wouldn't have to refactor >the tag libraries? I suppose this might sound like a kluge. Gary: which is the great idea? Using some config param to make the form optional? Or just making it optional in general? I'm not sure what the dummy form is for, unless the form wasn't optional. I'm wondering if I might not also like behavior that also let you use HTML form tags in the absence of a backing form bean; just skip the re-filling instead of throwing an error. That would allow us to have non-programmers flesh out JSPs including forms with the right Struts tags at any time ahead of programmers coming along and implementing the form pieces. They're already familiar with substituting <html:*> for <input type="*"> in production apps, but they aren't ready to do a lot of struts-config work defining form beans and action mappings. Would people object to reworking the form tags for more graceful degradation at all levels in the absence of a form bean, instead of exception throwing? Joe >Gary VanMatre > >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:09 AM >To: Struts Developers List >Subject: RE: why are form beans required for html:form? > >At 8:59 PM -0700 1/14/04, Richard Hightower wrote: >>how about another attribute, i.e., >> >><html:form checkFormBean="false" ... >> >>The checkFormBean defaults to true so it is backwards compatible with >other >>versions. >> >> >>I like the idea that html:form checks for the form bean. It makes it >easier >>to debug the way it is. >>However, I can see when you would not want that.... > >Well, I'm figuring that if you actually NEED the form bean, then >something else would throw an exception; presumably the first input tag >which isn't backed by some explicitly named bean. > >I'd probably leave out the parameter in preference of error checking at >the right spot. I think what Ted was getting at in his email was that > other tags might not be doing good error checking because >they've always deferred to html:form -- and yes, it would be bad to > remove the check and then start having NPEs thrown that might be much > harder to debug. > >Joe > >-- >Joe Germuska >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://blog.germuska.com > "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them >the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and > nobody thinks of complaining." > -- Jef Raskin > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- To >unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining." -- Jef Raskin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
