My only comment is that it seems we're throwing a lot of technology at a problem that
could be solved by putting an empty DynaActionForm in the Struts config, and just
referring to that. Perhaps something like:
<form-bean name="buttonForm" type="org.apache.struts.action.DynaForm" />
-Ted.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:45:41 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
> 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: struts-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
