> -----Original Message----- > From: Leandro Melo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:48 AM > To: Struts Users Mailing List > Subject: RE: ActionForm with all application attributes > > > Jim, all the code i`m talking about is inside a Base > Action Form. It seems the you`re thinking that my code > is inside a action, aren`t you?? Maybe a > misundertanding, maybe mine, maybe yours.
No, I understood you to have it in a Base Action. > > So, i agree with some of your comments, but not on all > of thems. In fact, i`m gonna to take a look about this > customized classes to use with validator. Another trick, is to use the same AcitonForm class, but call it different things. Since validator will work by name, and not by class you can customize based on that alone. You can also validate a form by action mapping, rather then by form name. > > > > > --- Jim Barrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Leandro Melo > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 5:48 PM > > > To: struts jakarta > > > Subject: ActionForm with all application > > attributes > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > i sent this question yesterday, but as nowbody > > > answered me, i trying it again with a more > > > sifinificant title (sorry for the re-post). > > > Also, if i'm doing something terrible, i'd like to > > > know. > > > > > > Keeping in mind that more than one action form may > > > have to validate and/or reset the same fields, i > > > decided to this. > > > > > > I already have a MyBaseActionForm which > > incorporates > > > all > > > some methods that i need in my application. I > > don't > > > use Validator, as i prefer to use java classes for > > > validation ligth business logic. > > > > > > Now, i decided to add ALL fileds (setters and > > > getters) > > > i have in my application as private members of > > this > > > MyBaseActionForm. > > > > > > Then i created classes WebValidation and WebReset. > > > This classes have validate methods for all fields > > in > > > my application. These classes can access the > > fields > > > they need for each method because all my action > > > forms > > > extend the MyBaseActionForm, thus this > > WebValidation > > > and WebReset classes can call the setters and > > > getters > > > of an y action form to validate with the light > > > business logic i need. > > > > > > I got with this approach a centralized way and > > > "component" responsible for the validation. All my > > > action forms delegate the validate and reset > > methods > > > to the classes i mentioned. > > > > > > I'd like to briefly describe some nice > > > benefits of this approach. > > > > > > - With this approach i definetly solve my earlier > > > problem that i posted on question "1:N > > relationships - > > > ActionForm x DTOs". > > > > Didn't see this post, but yes there could be 1 to > > many between ActinForm and DTO's, and this is not a > > problem. ActionForms directly represent what is on > > the screen, while DTO's represent your data. You > > have a 1-to-many relationship between screens and > > tables. > > > > > > > > - With this approach i got no coupling between my > > > ActionForm and DTOs. > > > > What do you mean by coupling? You still have to > > transfer data to and from the DTO. > > > > > > > > - With this approach i have a centralized validate > > > unit. It's very usual to have more than 1 action > > form > > > validating the same field, what may causes some > > > duplication and a harder maintenance. A central > > unit > > > of validation and resetting suits this problem > > very > > > well. > > > > The strtus validate stuff is centralized, and easier > > to configure. Doing it all in one class, means that > > at some point your going to have logic to handle > > special cases.... The more of these you have hte > > more complex the logic... Complex logic is directly > > related to the stability of your code. > > In addition I don't have to code the validations > > myself. Just specify what I want validated and I'm > > done. You could do the same thing, however you > > still have to glue it all together. > > > > > > > > - With this approach i can perform light business > > > validation that must be done in java code. So, for > > one > > > or more situation i could access some util classes > > > that do some validation for me. > > > > You can do this with custom validation classes and > > still achieve centralizations. Depending on what > > you mean by light business validation. I like > > consistency in where things are. Business rules in > > business layer, and validation in the view tier. A > > newcomer to the app would have to guess (yeah, sure > > they'll ask, maybe) where the code is supposed to > > go. > > > > > > > > - With this approach i have very small action > > forms > > > that basically has a validate and reset methods > > that > > > just delegate to the WebValidation and WebReset > > > classes. > > > > With the standard struts approach I have even > > smaller action classes.... no validate or reset > > methods. > > > > > > > > - With this approach i also have a central unit of > > > fields and their types, so if it's necessary to > > chance > > > them, i don't need to go through all the action > > forms > > > that have these fields. > > > > You can do this with a base action form. > > > > > > > > This approach will only work correctly if you > > don't > > > have fields with the same name in your > > application. > > > Naturally, this is not a drawback because forces > > you > > > to use a nice use of software engineering forcing > > you > > > to give significant names for the fiels. > > > > Not entirely true. I have several fields that get > > validated differently based on where they come from, > > or where the data is going (some customers will > > accept a phone number that is 10-30 numbers, -() and > > '.', others want a US phone number). Right now, I > > use a different form bean for each, and use a common > > base class for everything. The different child > > class allows for different completely different > > validations, which is what I need. Doing it your > > way would make this customization much harder, since > > I would have to sublcass the validation class too. > > With struts 1.2, I can use inheritance and make this > > even easier then the copy and paste I use now. > > > > > > > > > > Well, i'd appreciate comments (bad or nice ones) > > on > > > that. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Leandro > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > > Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - navegue de graça com > > conexão de qualidade! > > > http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/ > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - navegue de graça com conexão de qualidade! > http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
