beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Feit <richf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: deprecating NetUI's FormData
Date Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:20:31 GMT
OK, we're all in agreement on having two interfaces at least.  Let's nix
the FormBean uber-interface.  It's something that corresponds to what
you get out of Struts ActionForm, but after I went to bed I realized
that if anything, FormBean should be an abstract base class that
implements both interfaces.  There is a use for that, but I'm happy
enough to start without it.  If people end up thinking it's silly that
to get anything done in NetUI you have to implement 50 different
interfaces, then we can react at that point.  :)

Rich

Daryl Olander wrote:

>I'd add two interfaces, but you can't "evolve" these interfaces. Once you
>ship an interface, it's there forever. Validation and Reset are very
>different things and not related, which is the reason for two interfaces.
>
>I also wouldn't add the uber interface. There doesn't seem to be reason for
>it and it just one more thing that you can't change that duplicates existing
>functionality.
>
>On 11/15/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>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