Gee -
No sooner did I fire off my response, then I read this response telling me
I was all wrong.
<egg-on-face/>
I guess I'm specifying how I design code myself - not how struts does it.
That being said, this limitation of having to specify a concrete class only
should be logged as an "enhancement request" in bugzilla. You should be
able to either:
1. Have the form bean subclass an abstract form bean,
2. have the form bean implement a form bean interface you define, or
3. specify a specific class name.
I'd say also that allowing it to implement an interface is my preferred
approach over subclassing an abstract class. You can always define an
Abstract class that implements the interface if you want. That is,
- an interface-based approach allows all of 1, 2, and 3.
- requiring subclassing allows only 1 and 3.
Sorry for the cross post to the developers list -
FWIW -
Kevin
"Nicolas De Loof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 04/22/2002 10:13:38 AM
Please respond to "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: form bean life cycle
[send in copy on Struts-dev list]
In ActionServlet (Struts 1.0.2) you can read that formBean object found in
scope is compared to the form name declared in ActionMapping by testing
class name, not testing it using an "isInstance" or any other reflection
mecanism that could allow using inheritance or abstract FormBeans.
instance = (ActionForm) session.getAttribute(attribute);
...
className = formBean.getType();
...
className.equals(instance.getClass().getName())) {
Can any Struts developper explain if there is a technical reason to this
limitation ?
> Hello all, I a mwondering about this ?
>
> I have a form bean declared abstract and I have subclassed it
> into three concrete form bean classes that I use, this works OK.
>
> Then, I want now, to use an action that does not require to know
> anything about these concretes implementations: I want my
> action to work on the interface of the abstract form, for this
> I have declared an action-mapping to use a form bean
> of the abstract class and from the session scope, I thought
> that struts won't try to create the form again (actually it
> can't because the form class is abstract), infortunatelly
> the logs of struts told me that struts have tried to create
> it.
>
> My question is why do struts try to recreate the action form
> if it can be found from the session
>
> =============================================================
> -- KeV --
> =============================================================
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, proprietary , confidential and exempt from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
