+1 for SasquatchBean. Although debugging those can get.....(dare I say)......hairy ?!?
James Mitchell Software Engineer\Struts Evangelist Struts-Atlanta, the "Open Minded Developer Network" http://www.open-tools.org/struts-atlanta > -----Original Message----- > From: Bartley, Chris P [PCS] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:16 PM > To: 'Struts Users Mailing List' > Subject: RE: struts 2.0 naming conventions? > > > I'd add that even "Form" could be confusing to some. Based on > the number of > posts to this list, there appears to be a large percentage of new > users who > don't understand that both GET and POST requests can populate a form bean > (and that you don't need a <form>...</form> to do it). > > I'm not sure what a good alternative would be for ActionForm, however. > RequestBean? RequestParametersBean? CrapIWantTheActionToUseBean? > SasquatchBean*? ;-) I'll leave that decision up to those more > creative with > words than I. :D > > chris > * <grins-at-James-Mitchell/> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vincent Stoessel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 10:46 AM > > To: Struts Users > > Subject: struts 2.0 naming conventions? > > > > > > In the next version of struts, will there be some thought given > > to the naming conventions of naming the main classes in struts? > > Calling everything ActionThis and Actionthat is really confusing the > > new user. > > ActionForm could just be Form for example etc. > > Thank You for your time. > > > > -- > > Vincent Stoessel > > Linux Systems Developer > > vincent xaymaca.com > > > > > > -- > > 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]>
