> > And AF is then for when you do have specific > > validation--and it would be good if we can give > > programmers the option in the future of using > either > > the beanutils get()/set() functions or the > JavaBeans > > getter/setter functions within the AF. > > > > I don't buy this argument at all. > > It is still easier to write a DAF subclass with a > custom reset() or > validate() than a corresponding AF subclass -- > because with DAF you still > get to skip writing the getters and setters. > Crippling DAF, and forcing > people back to AF solely for this purpose, is not > helpful. > > Craig > >
Well, I was thinking that you could do one method of the other with AF--not needing both, but nevermind--that's a sloppy design anyway. The current design: AF: for getter/setters, DAF: for get()/set() DAF: but don't subclass if you have no validation to do is pretty clean. I wouldn't change it. Thanks, Glen _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Informaci�n de Estados Unidos y Am�rica Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias. Vis�tanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
