[ http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2905?page=all ]
Felipe Desiderati e Souza updated STR-2905:
-------------------------------------------
Summary: Allow nested tags <include ..> inside an action (<action
...></action>) (was: Allow nested tags <include ..> insinde an action <action
...></action>)
> Allow nested tags <include ..> inside an action (<action ...></action>)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: STR-2905
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2905
> Project: Struts 1
> Type: Improvement
> Components: Core
> Versions: 1.2.9
> Environment: System: Microsoft Windows XP (Version 2002 - Service Pack 2)
> App Server: Tomcat 5.5.9
> Struts Version; 1.2.9
> Reporter: Felipe Desiderati e Souza
> Priority: Minor
>
> I know that is possible to do an include instead of a forward, but it's only
> possible to use in declarations like this:
> ...
> <action path="/something" include="/path/to/my/file.jsp" />
> ...
> So if I need to do an include using an action that has more than one forward
> and/or include, I need to do something like this:
> ...
> <action type="myClass" ... />
> <forward name="f1" path="/f1Include.do" /> <!-- This need to be an include
> -->
> <forward name="f2" path="/f2.jsp" />
> <forward name="f3" path="/f3.jsp" />
> </action>
> <action path="/f1Include" include="/f1.jsp" />
> ...
> So Why do we have to do this? First, because the <forward ../> tag doesn't
> have any attribute that tells that this forward should be an include. And
> second, because doesn't exist any nested tag like <include ../> to replace
> the <forward ../> tag.
> I don't know if exists any problem in use this approach, i.e., add the
> <include ../> tag to struts DTD, and in the Request Processor add a
> veirifcation if it's a forward or an include. Like is done with single
> action, showed in the first example above. So, if we use the first example,
> the Request Processor verifies if it needs to do an forward, if not then it
> verifies if it needs to do an include. As you can see in follow piece of code:
> ...
> public void process(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse
> response) {
> ...
> if (!processForward(request, response, mapping)) {
> return;
> }
>
> if (!processInclude(request, response, mapping)) {
> return;
> }
> ...
> }
> ...
> But if we have to do anything like what was showed in the second example, we
> can't. Unless we use that approach.
> I realize with this solution of adding the tag <include>, we still have the
> backward compatibility and an improvement to setup an include on actions with
> multiples forwards/includes, without use any more action.
> Felipe
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
