RE: [OS-webwork] ActionTag changes

[Patrick Lightbody]

Title: Message

Rather than supporting name and value, we’ll just make name an evaluated _expression_ – unless 1.3 didn’t do that (we need to keep compatibility if possible).   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Patterson Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] ActionTag changes   Great.  The Action tag will be much more useful after those changes.  One other improvement I would like to suggest is to have a 'value' attribute in addition to the 'name' attribute.  Then I will eventually be able to replace all my <ww:include's with <ww:action's   John.   ----- Original Message ----- From: Jason Carreira To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 2:47 AM Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] ActionTag changes   should be taken care of -----Original Message----- From: Michal Mosiewicz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 3:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] ActionTag changes   >[...] Is it correct that the main difference between using the Action tag and the Include tag for 'componentising' a page is that the Action tag uses the same value stack?  It seems include includes servlet's output (copying stream data) and it's really not related to actions at all, while Action tag uses actions to eventually dispatch to view components. Does the Action tag push the action onto the stack?   I hope that's a good time to make sure Pat remembers my suggestions. IMHO Action tag executing results should push the action onto the stack just before it does execute result, and then it should pop the action off the stack as soon as result is finished.   This way you would (logically) access both actions in the included view.   The problem was that action invocations was assumed never take actions off the stack, but I posted apropriate patches to deal with that.   Regards, -- Mike