Thanks, their is a further complexity in my system, in that the exact type of the Value isn't actually known at compile time it is actually a kinda urber configurable form display, hence the desire to use a TypeConverter, but I think you are right and a different approach is inevitable. Currently looking at binding to a Map of strings and doing the type conversation my self.
Thanks Gareth 2009/11/3 Robert Graf-Waczenski <r...@lsoft.com> > Gareth Davis schrieb: > > The more I look at the Ognl stuff and the ParametersIntercepter the >> more I've convincing my self that this is just not possible with the >> framework, can anybody confirm this? >> >> > > Others may have a deeper knowledge of the framework, but i would approach > your issue differently. Since setters for your html form fields are called > independently of each other and in an unpredictable order, you should code > your action to have separate members for each of the getters/setters and > have your Date instance created properly in your action method. Or you > implement a weaker form of immutability that allows an object to shortly > exist in an non-immutable state (so you can new it with empty members and > have it being accessed directly from your setters) and then "petrify" the > object in your action method. We in our project have invented such a pattern > ten years ago and are using it ever since without looking back :-) > > Robert > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org > >
