struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eddie Bush <>
Subject Re: struts 2.0 naming conventions?
Date Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:29:38 GMT
Calling it "RequestParameterBean" causes a disconnect too.  Call it what 
it is - we are OO folks after-all - a FormBean.  It *is* intended to be 
used with <html:form> - though you may find it handy for other things.

Sorry :-) Let's not start a religious debate over expected convention. 
 I name things deliberately by their expected context.  Following this 
convention "FormBean" is not only an acceptable name, but a very 
descriptive one.  It states that it is a bean which models a form.  Is 
this not why we have them?  Good OO tells us to name things after their 
real-world counterparts to avoid a disconnect - thus Form is a good 
name.  Java convention for naming beans is to append Bean to the name 
(so the name is indicative of it's attributes).  Putting the two 
together ... well, I'm beating a dead horse ... :-)

I thought your complaint was that there were too many Action* classes ...

I really think the conventions I state are sound.  You can't expect to 
be able to determine a classes full function just by looking at it's 
name -- that is why we have javadocs, etc ... I know people gripe about 
the quality of documentation, but I seriously wonder how many of the 
have truly taken the time to actually *look* at the javadocs.

I'll agree to disagree if you will ;-)  

Bartley, Chris P [PCS] wrote:

>No, my point is that any use of the word "form" in the name of the class is
>potentially confusing because apparently sometimes people mistakenly think
>"Oh, i have to use a <form>...</form> in the page that calls this action".
>>Then, the name of the class goes well with what people call it.  You 
>>don't have a disconnect.
>Well, i think that people casually refer to it as a "form bean" because it's
>currently named "ActionForm".  If the class had been named
>"RequestParametersBean" from the start, i doubt very much that today people
>would be calling it a "form bean".  I think it's the word "form" in there
>that's causing so much confusion for newbies (and at least part of the
>reason why there are so many questions that read something like "how can i
>call my action from a link and still have my form bean populated?").

Eddie Bush

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message