beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eddie O'Neil <ekon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: deprecating NetUI's FormData
Date Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:44:24 GMT
  Since you asked...

  :)


On 11/15/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's definitely my instinct, too.  Any thoughts on:
>
>     1) whether to include a simple FormBean interface that extends both
> of the others

I wouldn't -- if a class wants both interfaces, they can implement
both.  In doing so, they're still implementing the same number of
methods, so the only typing difference is something like:

  implements Validatable, FormLifecycle

versus:

  implements FormStuff

>     2) what to call the interface with prePopulate

FormLifecycle?

>
> ?
> Rich
>
> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>
> >  My vote would be for two interfaces as it allows each to evolve
> >independently.  I'd guess that not all of our existing tests need
> >both, so that's probably somewhat representative of some basic usage
> >patterns which implies the loose coupling.  Might as well not force
> >classes to implement methods they don't need.  :)
> >
> >Eddie
> >
> >
> >On 11/15/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>OK, this is in with revision 344895.
> >>
> >>I did find the *single* bit of usefulness in extending FormData.  Like
> >>the Struts ActionForm, it allows you to perform initialization and other
> >>logic in a reset() method.  This method is called before population of
> >>data from the request, and it has access to the request object.
> >>
> >>Given this, I'd propose exposing something like prePopulate() through an
> >>interface.  My preference would be to have a single interface (FormBean)
> >>that either contains both prePopulate() and validate(), or extends two
> >>separate interfaces for each of those two methods.
> >>
> >>Any thoughts on this?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Rich
> >>
> >>Rich Feit wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Excellent.  I made a local change that does this (and fixes up all the
> >>>code/test that depends on it).  If no one else has any objections, I'll
> >>>check it in as soon as I'm finished.
> >>>
> >>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>+1
> >>>>
> >>>>Seems totally right to start doing this with the "legacy" infrastructure.
 :)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>On 11/14/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Would anyone object to me deprecating
> >>>>>org.apache.beehive.netui.pageflow.FormData?  It's basically a legacy
> >>>>>action form base class that's no longer necessary (as a user-visible
> >>>>>class) since we support *any* type as a form bean.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Let me know if you see any problem with this...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks,
> >>>>>Rich
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message