I've noticed this too. It's kinda annoying that you have to do a
<bean:define> to make a <html:options> work and you don't to make a
<logic:iterate> work.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael McCallister [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 15:58
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mismatch Between <html:options> and <logic:iterate>
Am I the only one who finds it odd that while both <logic:iterate> and
<html:options> take a "collection" attribute, one expects a run-time
expression that evaluates to a Collection and the other takes a String that
names a bean in some scope that is a Collection?
Shouldn't these two tags play according to the same rules when it comes to
identically named attributes? Should I file a bug for this? Should one
behavior "win-out" over the other? In my opinion, the behavior of naming
bean with a String attribute feels the most "Struts like".
Unfortunately, changing things one way or the other will break code, but
better to do so before cutting a release than after.
Mike
