struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig R. McClanahan" <>
Subject Re: /contrib
Date Sat, 07 Jul 2001 21:10:49 GMT

On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Ted Husted wrote:

> David Winterfeldt wrote:
> > I don't know.  I could go either way.  I think it
> > makes sense having the ValidatorForm in
> > org.apache.struts.action.  
> +1 on org.apache.struts.action if that's what you want to do.
> > Are there any issues with breaking backwards
> > compatibility?  I'm for replacing the validator
> > version for the current since iterating throught the
> > errors further encourages formatting to be in the
> > view.  If we do replace the old tag, would it still be
> > somewhere for people to access the old tag that
> > migrate from Struts 1.0 to Struts 1.1?  Possibly
> > called html:errorsOld or old-html:errors.  Or the new
> > one could be html:errorsIterator.
> Craig setup a 1.1 DTD so we could make changes there without affecting
> the 1.0 users. I guess we need a similar strategy for the taglibs
> themselves. If we made the old taglib available as struts-html-10, then
> they could keep compatible just by changing the web.xml reference, or
> something. 

Setting up a different taglib (struts-html-10) still forces old users to
change every page when they migrate to 1.1 :-(.

If its feasible, I'd like us to stick with a policy like this for tags:

* You can add new optional attributes to an existing tag,
  as long as the default behavior remains as it was before.

* If you are creating a substantially improved version of an
  old tag, deprecate the old one and create the new tag with
  a new name (or the same name in a new taglib).

Following this philosophy, we'd create a new tag (perhaps
<html:messages>?) for the new functionality, and deprecate
<html:errors>.  In addition, we'd need to change the 1.1 implementation of
<html:errors> so that it did something sensible, even in the face of a
"new and improved" error messages object.

What do you think?

> -Ted.


View raw message