Changes for 2.0 (RE: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards")

[Brian Topping <to...@digidemic.com>]

2.0 seems to actually be the *ideal* time to change this.  Major version
change is where major changes occur.  Otherwise we should wait until 3.0.

1.1 is the release that is still being worked on, right?  I've been out of
the loop for a few months here.  Searching mail-archive doesn't return any
results, but that's probably because it's parsing what I am typing.

I'd also like to advance the case that 1.x releases and 2.0 releases are
concurrent and 1.x put into maintenance mode for the people that are
concerned about compatibility.  (I swear I hope that this hasn't been
discussed already!!)

best,

-b

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 10:00 PM
> To: struts-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards"
> 
> 
> Request scoped forms don't need to implement reset().  Ted 
> has stated that 
> Session scoped forms only need to reset checkboxes.  If 
> that's the case, 
> maybe there is a symantically clearer method we could use.  
> Many apps depend 
> on the current reset behavior so this couldn't be changed 
> before 2.0 if at 
> all.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >From: "Brian Topping" <to...@digidemic.com>
> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <st...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >To: "Struts Developers List" <st...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >Subject: RE: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards"
> >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:56:32 -0500
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@apache.org]
> > > Subject: RE: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards"
> > >
> > > The missing link for a multi-page form is some way to tie
> > > which page got
> > > submitted to the set of properties that live on that page
> > > (and therefore
> > > need to be reset.
> >
> >As David Graham said: "Interesting, but then you're creating 
> a programming
> >language in XML.  I think this logic should be in code."
> >
> >Occam's Razor (oh-so-trendy these days) would have it that 
> the developer
> >knows best when a form needs to be reset and to let them 
> call it.  Clearly,
> >reset() needs to be called whenever a form is instantiated 
> to get default
> >values, but it should not be called by the framework.  If 
> the form is in
> >request scope, the form will be created on Action 
> invocation, semantically
> >implying reset().  If the form is session based and not a part of the
> >session, it is created and reset() is called.  If the form 
> is a part of the
> >session already, it is left alone.
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >-b
> >
> >--
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> ><ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >For additional commands, e-mail: 
> ><ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>