No, it's the same problem that we had in the past (before GenericDispatcher). The solution that was proposed is to use the redirect.action (when I get it working that is). And for 1.3 I think that's fine.
I was thinking about this some more and actually, maybe consolidating views.properties and actions.xml is actually the _wrong_ way to go. Instead, why not do something similar to what happens today, except make a few changes: - keep global configuration (a la webwork.properties) seperate from action configuration (a la views.properties) - allow the configuration (XMLActionConfiguration vs PropertiesConfiguration) to be specified in the global configuration, or default to PropertiesConfiguration if not given (so things stay simple, right?) - Change the configuration architecture so that the example I posted in my weblog is supported. This basically means that internally, "Foo!someCommand" means nothing. Instead, the configuration (again, this is internally) actually is generic enough like the config I gave in my weblog. Then PropertiesConfiguration can read views.properties like it always did, and translate "Foo!someCommand" as "the class is Foo and pass a property key/value pair of command=someCommand in before executing". Before you shoot it down as overly complex, remember that externally, things are as simple as always, but power users (like me) can write a better XMLConfiguration that takes advantage of the new, powerful, (internal) configuration architecture. -Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maurice Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:41 AM Subject: Re: Configuration (was RE: [OS-webwork] Webwork Security Requirements) > > > Patrick Lightbody wrote: > > >As for parsing whether the result is an action or a view, it's not that it's > >non-trivial, it's that it's impossible, since the user might want either > >behavior! > > > It better not be impossible. All that GenericDispatcher code you added > tries to do that today, and requires the ability to do so to function > correctly. If it's impossible, I can't see how we can include it in the > upcoming 1.3 release and have zero defects. > > -Maurice > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in > Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be > fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
