Mailing-List: contact user-help@struts.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <user@struts.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID;
  b=MxUpjINGEDy+o85UJMPU38XygR7A40lKoYOG/tzVamb+0ms1UWOW63QMkWO9GD8Ra6kZWDkwDi04iFNdLkZKpzBrm5Yfd9fwSntt7O1Y0iOZsv3aOgaXJ1c6JVVmEFMk7P5YTz/TmZFXEdD7+kXEgv1E3ryhwXSgWRGTB1V1aP0=;
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 06:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Newton <newton.dave@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Mapping multiple enums to a nested object
To: Struts Users Mailing List <user@struts.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <12859800.post@talk.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <224912.78346.qm@web56702.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

--- Guillaume Bilodeau <gbilodeau@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes it was deliberate. I'm not sure I see the
> advantages of flattening my action *and* my request 
> object, for now I'd rather keep this nested as it
> currently is.  Of course I'll change my mind if
> given the right counter-arguments :)

The most compelling counter-argument is that
getModel() doesn't expose anything to the JSP unless
you implement ModelDriven.

You reference "food.name" etc. on your form but don't
expose anything named "food", which is what Adam was
referring to. 

Even if you *did* implement ModelDriven you would
still not be exposing anything named "food" to the
JSP: the result of the getModel() call is pushed on to
the stack, properties are accessed by name (without
the bean name), like <s:property value="name"/>.

d.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org