Oops. Just to clarify, it should be
class MyForm extends ActionForm
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:25:30 -0500, Hubert Rabago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow. You're using the <nested> tags for this form, right?
>
> I haven't tried this yet, but there's a chance you might be able to
> define a form with a field that matches FooBar:
>
> class MyForm {
> FooBarForm fooBar; // then you'll have your accessors, of course
>
> class FooBarForm {
> Integer id;
> String value;
> String type;
> Collection fooBars;
> // define accessors
> /** no-arg constructor */
> FooBarForm () {
> fooBars = ListUtils.lazyList(new ArrayList(), new Factory() {
> public Object create() {
> return new FooBarForm();
> }
> });
> }
> }
> }
>
> I think (at least in theory) that BeanUtils will be able to handle
> this bean. You'll be passing it MyForm.fooBar instead of MyForm
> itself.
>
> If you decide to try this, could you share the results? :)
>
> Hubert
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:01:26 -0400, Rick Reumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This app I'm working on is sort of any odd beast. It's a case where the
> > resulting JSP is going to be built by generic beans that are nested
> > inside of the same type of generic bean etc. So for an example ...
> >
> > class FooBar {
> > Collection fooBars;
> > Integer id;
> > String type;
> > String value;
> > //set/gets
> > }
> >
> > So what happens is you can have Collections of these beans nested
> > serveral levels and you don't know before run-time how deep.
> >
> > My form will need to display everything and capture any changes to the
> > 'value' field.
> >
> > So my ActionForm (in this example) would only have one main property:
> >
> > private FooBar fooBar;
> >
> > When the form submits it captures all the nested fooBar information.
> >
> > The problem of course is making sure you don't get those nasty BeanUtils
> > index errors when the form submits.
> >
> > Typically, for standard applications, I'd use ListUtils.lazyList for my
> > Collections. The problem, though, here is that you don't know how deep
> > the Collections go (without a call to the business layer).
> >
> > The only way I've found to get this type of form to work is to give it
> > Session scope. Everything is fine then since it retains the initial
> > FooBar object placed in the form that is done in a 'setUp' or 'prep'
> > method before the form is displayed for the user.
> >
> > Just wondering if there is another approach I could consider to tackle
> > this without using the Session. I think in this case the Session holds
> > the most promise.
> >
> > --
> > Rick
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
