It's ignored as I preferred to have the tags rely on a central source the naming of the bean they're all going to be referencing. I feel it's safer being represented in a properly set up root tag, rather than any one name attribute of a parent tag.
Some people also put the name attributes of child beans from their iterate tags etc etc etc, out of habit or something. If supplying the name attribute made a tag a root tag, then the property hierarchy would be reset, and the form inputs would be broken with incorrect nested properties. I also feel its better readability in the markup to have a root tag which is there for that purpose rather than looking through the tags for the errant name attribute. Also makes the child tags easier to read by disregarding the name attribute. Anyways, this is all my $0.0.2. If enough people want this changed, then it's possible. Arron. David Morris wrote: >Arron, > >And that is what I did. At this point the nested tag is working great >so >it is not worth spending much time on but I wonder why the name >attribute on the nested:iterate tag seems to be ignored. From the >documentation and what I remember of using the base iterate tag, I >expected the following to work: > ><html:form action="/myform.do"> > <nested:iterate name="myBean" property="myBeanProperty"> > <nested:text property="myBeanPropertyProperty" /> > </nested:iterate> ></html:form> > >When I tried this the form bean was used rather than myBean. Is >the name attribute on a nested:iterate totally ignored? When I look >at the NestedNameSupport class I get the impression that nested >tag names sit off to the side and do not extend the base name >support. > >Thanks, > >David Morris > >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/04/02 03:09AM >>> >>>> >David, > >You can wedge a <nested:root> tag within the form tag. The child tags >to >the root tag will only see the root tag, and those outside the scope of > >the root tag won't know it's there either. > >Example... ><html:form action="/myform.do"> > > <nested:root name="myOtherBean"> > <nested:iterate property="myBenProperty"> > <nested:text property="myBeanPropertyProperty" /> > </nested:iterate> > </nested:root> > > <nested:nest> > [... other nesting exploits ...] > </nested:nest> > ></html:form> > > > ...will work just fine. The stuff within the root tag will only be > >working against that bean, and the "other nesting exploits" stuff will > >be working against the form bean. As soon as the tags hit a valid root > >tag, they stop there and use that one. Which is what makes the above >possible. > >Is this the answer you're looking for?... > > >Arron. > > > >David Morris wrote: > >>I am using the 1.1b1 nested tags and ran into something that >>seems inconsistent. When I specify a form like: >> >><html:form action="myform"> >><nested:iterate name="mybean" property="mybeanproperty"> >><nested:text property="mybeanpropertyproperty"> >>... >> >>I get an error that mybeanproperty, which is an ArrayList is not >>found in myform? If I create a getter in my form bean for mybean >>it works OK. I really don't want to do this unless there is a way to >>get the request associated with a form bean. >> >>The following sort of thing does work so I have to question whether >>I am using the nested tags properly: >> >><html:form action="myform"> >><html:select property="mybeanproperty"> >><html:options name="mybean" >>property="mybeanproperty.mybeanpropertyproperty"> >>... >> >>How do I tell the nested:iterate tag to use the bean I specified >>rather than the form bean? >> >>Thanks, >> >>David Morris >> >> >> >>-- >>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]> > > >-- >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]>
