Bill -
The point of my discussion was the following premise:
public class MyCheckboxForm extends ActionForm
public class MyForm1 extends MyCheckboxForm
public class MyForm2 extends MyCheckboxForm
I want to be able to pass MyForm1 or MyForm2 to the same JSP and have it
work because the JSP is only concerned with the contents within
MyCheckboxForm, but I dont think I can do this, at least not cleanly.
So what I have considered is the following alternative:
public class MyForm1 extends ActionForm
public class MyForm2 extends ActionForm
public class MyCheckboxForm extends ActionForm
Then, when MyForm1 is posted to my action, it will instantiate a
MyCheckboxForm object in the request scope, transfer the MyForm1 object from
request to session scope for later retreival and note the bean name in the
MyCheckboxForm. Populate the needed data from MyForm1 into MyCheckboxForm
and finally forward to this common JSP. This JSP will do its thing and
finally posts its data back to an action with a flag that says, "we're done,
transfer data back".
The MyCheckboxForm contains the bean-name of MyForm1 which was in the
session scope, the action retreives it, transfers the data from the
MyCheckboxForm back into MyForm1, updating it accordingly and then removes
the session-scope MyForm1 and puts it back into the request scope forwarding
the user to the final JSP which renders the changes made by the checkbox
logic.
The point is we want to have a single form which we can manipulate
label/value(s) via checkbox selection and pagination. Once the user have
selected "save/return", the data of all their selections gets passed back to
the original form which will later be used for a search query.
Like I said, I think what I decided on as an alternative seems to be a much
cleaner and easier approach as it removes any "ties" between the forms
themselves and really lets the "core logic" of the checkbox form stand alone
for usability for any other future purpose.
Thanks in advance!
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Siggelkow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: bean defines
> Chris, your running into the problem because when you use <bean:define>
> where the value is specified in the body of that tag, it create a new
> String scripting variable as well as a page-scoped attribute that is
> also a String.
>
> Instead, you want the actual form bean itself. I am not too sure about
> how tiles fits into the mix but for a normal action mapping where the
> form was specified as "MyForm" in the name attribute you could simply do
> the following:
>
> The Page Number: <c:out value="${MyForm.pageNumber}" />
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
