<html:form> data is actually a subset of the data that can be sent via FormBeans, i.e. the set that are accessible and editable within an HTML form.
It sounds like people are also using FormBeans to access data outside of forms in order to use the FormBean configuration as documentation of a sort of data transfer API. Maybe something like "DataTransferBean" or just "TransferBean" could be used to indicate that something will be used to convey data in at least one direction, and "FormBean" could be a subclass that allows the read/write behavior of HTML form attribute. My 2 c. -JT -----Original Message----- From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:30 PM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: struts 2.0 naming conventions? Calling it "RequestParameterBean" causes a disconnect too. Call it what it is - we are OO folks after-all - a FormBean. It *is* intended to be used with <html:form> - though you may find it handy for other things. Sorry :-) Let's not start a religious debate over expected convention. I name things deliberately by their expected context. Following this convention "FormBean" is not only an acceptable name, but a very descriptive one. It states that it is a bean which models a form. Is this not why we have them? Good OO tells us to name things after their real-world counterparts to avoid a disconnect - thus Form is a good name. Java convention for naming beans is to append Bean to the name (so the name is indicative of it's attributes). Putting the two together ... well, I'm beating a dead horse ... :-) I thought your complaint was that there were too many Action* classes ... I really think the conventions I state are sound. You can't expect to be able to determine a classes full function just by looking at it's name -- that is why we have javadocs, etc ... I know people gripe about the quality of documentation, but I seriously wonder how many of the have truly taken the time to actually *look* at the javadocs. I'll agree to disagree if you will ;-) Bartley, Chris P [PCS] wrote: >No, my point is that any use of the word "form" in the name of the class is >potentially confusing because apparently sometimes people mistakenly think >"Oh, i have to use a <form>...</form> in the page that calls this action". > >>Then, the name of the class goes well with what people call it. You >>don't have a disconnect. >> > >Well, i think that people casually refer to it as a "form bean" because it's >currently named "ActionForm". If the class had been named >"RequestParametersBean" from the start, i doubt very much that today people >would be calling it a "form bean". I think it's the word "form" in there >that's causing so much confusion for newbies (and at least part of the >reason why there are so many questions that read something like "how can i >call my action from a link and still have my form bean populated?"). > >chris > -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
