But if it works without it and you don't care about the persistant strategy, then I don't need it, right? I mean, it working without it not a bug.
Gregg On 5/10/05, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 10, 2005, at 11:58 AM, Gregg D Bolinger wrote: > > > In 3.0 we did a property-specification for each property in the > > Java file > > and declared a type, etc. The property-specification tag went way, > > obviously > > in 4.0. In fact, It would seem that you don't need to do anything > > similar in > > 4.0 for it to all work. Is this correct? Should I still be > > specifying a > > <property> with a persist attribute for the page? Like I said, it > > works > > without it. I am still able to call my abstract getXXXX method and > > it gives > > me the appropriate value from a ValidField. > > The differences that I know of are that you don't specify a type and > persist="session" is used instead of the 3.0 "yes" value - this is to > allow different persistence strategies in the future. > > Erik > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
