Would it be safe to pass the instantiated object to the the inject method of the container? Just want to make sure that I won't step into some unfortunate side effects...
Nils-H On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Nils-Helge Garli Hegvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After looking into the proposed solution, I'm not sure if it's the > right thing to do. The code where I need the extension runs in the > portlet dispatcher, before the ActionInvocation has been created. So > it would access the ActionContext before it has actually been created. > I think I need to access the action extension property from the > container in a way... > > Nils-H > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Nils-Helge Garli Hegvik > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ok, so I have to look up the current executing action and it's action >> mapping from the action context? I'll try that. Thanks. >> >> Nils-H >> >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> The ActionMapping contains the original extension that request was >>> submitted with. You can retrieve the ActionMapping either via the >>> ServetActionContext or the portlet dispatcher. >>> >>> Don >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Nils-Helge Garli Hegvik >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> I'm looking at WW-2622 and I need to get the configured action >>>> extension for the application. Is there a way to obtain this from a >>>> class that is not instantiated by the core container? >>>> >>>> Nils-H >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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]
