Did we lose ActionContext.getApplication() in favour of the ServletActionContext one?
I thought the intent of that was a generic 'application scope' map that you could get / set things into. For a servlet app, that maps (no pun intended) back to the servlet context. Mike On 2/7/03 6:52 AM, "Jason Carreira" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words: > Well, I'm glad to hear it.... But now you're making me work... See > below... > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:39 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [OS-webwork] WebWork2, here I come! >> >> >> I just wanted to drop a note that I'm almost a switcher to WW2. I've >> gotten my demo app that I use for all of my Ant, XDoclet, Lucene, and >> Struts presentations working just fine in WW2. Thanks to all that >> contributed to the wiki and sample app. where I learned >> enough to make >> it work. >> >> I'm on the process of plugging in validation, so I cannot comment on >> that yet. My app is a simple single-form and action with a simple >> String setter (think of a Google page, &q=...). >> >> I do have a few initial questions to get myself rolling even further >> along to being a complete switcher: >> >> - How do I get to my application context attributes? I >> set some in >> an initialization servlet from its init-param's. > > Check out ServletActionContext.getServletContext(). This should let you > do what you want to do (at the expense of not being able to use your > Action outside a Servlet container, but you're used to Struts, so we > forgive you :-)) > > >> >> - I plan on refactoring my infamous <custom:label> taglib >> in Struts >> to the comparable piece in WW2. Can someone point me in the right >> direction to grab the validation metadata so I can tell if a field is >> required or not, as well as getting at the errors from the validation >> so I can turn the label red? Or is there already infrastructure in >> place to make this unneeded or easier? > > It's very easy to check for errors. If your Action implements > ValidationAware (or extends ActionSupport or BaseActionSupport) then > this is built in, as errors will be added to your action and you can use > hasErrors(), hasActionErrors(), hasFieldErrors(), getActionErrors(), and > getFieldErrors() depending on what you need. > > For the validation metadata.... You can use > ActionValidatorManager.getValidators(ActionInvocation invocation) to get > them... You can get the ActionInvocation from the ActionContext. > Unfortunately, this will return you a list of validators. You can check > if they're FieldValidators and get the field name to compare... I > realize this is not ideal for what I think you're trying to do. I'm open > to changing / adding to make this easier, if you've got some ideas. > > The other challenge that you might face is if you want these tags to > work when the page is rendered without coming through an Action... We've > had some challenges there as far as not having an ActionInvocation yet. > You'll probably also want to know not the validators on THIS alias, but > the alias you're going to send the request TO. Yeah. Challenges. :-) > Maybe we could work to make them work inside the Form tag, and have that > have the ability to set the namespace and action alias for the sub-tags > to access, then add another access method for looking up the validators > using the namespace and alias to ActionValidatorManager. > >> >> Great work, everyone! WW2 passed the 15-minute rule of being able to >> pull it down and immediately be effective with it. There is still a >> way to go for me to fully implement all the pieces our >> current app can >> do (the main additional piece has to do with custom resource >> handling, >> not from a properties file but a DB instead). > > This sounds cool... We could make resource loading pluggable, like we > have for configuration, so message bundles can be pulled from other > sources than just properties files. > >> Perhaps at the next >> TheServerSide Symposium I'll do an "Advanced WebWork" presentation >> instead! :) (oops... Jason said he wanted that one, so its >> all his!). >> > > Heh :-) I think there's going to be lots to talk about.... > >> Erik >> >> p.s. I'm current on the list in digest mode, but will likely >> switch to >> individual messages as my WW2 usage cranks up. >> > > > We're just glad to have you... Next we'll convert Matt Raible, then > we'll teach Craig McClanahan the error of his ways... LOL > > Jason > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
