Oh finally the long awaited recognition ;-)
On 9/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see. You're just selecting which JSP to display with the action
forward, not changing the flow of the application. Is that right?
In that case, I can see some advantage over using Tiles.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Benedict [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Paul Benedict
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:43 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Private Actions Mappings?
>
>
> George, the action can choose which forward to return. You
> were asking
> if it, for example, always goes to "success"? No, it doesn't
> have to; it
> can choose the view via the forward.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Right, in that context including an action as a block is very much
> > like including a tile with an associated tile controller.
> The action
> > then just puts data into scope for the JSP to display.
> >
> > What I didn't understand was, "It can also decide the flow
> of display
> > by selecting the appropriate forward."
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Michael Jouravlev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:04 PM
> >> To: Struts Developers List
> >> Subject: Re: Private Actions Mappings?
> >>
> >>
> >> This topic NOT about chaining (Paul, I am very sorry to bring
> >> the chaining up).
> >>
> >> What Paul talks about is including an action URL into a JSP
> >> page. Consider a Model 1 application, JSP page can
> >> dynamically include other resources with <jsp:include> or
> >> with <c:import>. Now consider that a JSP page includes a
> >> Struts action instead of JSP file. Included Struts action
> >> forwards to a JSP file, the latter renders a fragment of a
> >> composite page. There is no disagreement.
> >>
> >> On 9/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> If you're chaining actions for different blocks of the
> >> display, how do
> >>> you handle disagreements between the appropriate forward of
> >> one block
> >>> vs. another? This seems problematic, to me.
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Paul Benedict [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Behalf
> >>>> Of Paul Benedict
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:07 PM
> >>>> To: Dinwiddie, George
> >>>> Cc: dev@struts.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: Private Actions Mappings?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> By performing an "action", it is getting data from a
> >> service. It can
> >>>> also decide the flow of display by selecting the appropriate
> >>>> forward.
> >>>>
> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>>> Coming in very late, here, but I just wanted clarification.
> >>>> It sounds
> >>>>> to me as if you're using actions like a tile
> >> controller. In other
> >>>>> words, it's not performing any "action" or deciding the flow of
> >>>>> display, but merely gathering data and putting it into
> >> scope for
> >>>>> display. Is that a correct description?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - George
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
> >> additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
