cvs commit: jakarta-struts/web/exercise-taglib/WEB-INF web.xml
husted 2004/02/13 03:07:55 Modified:doc/userGuide struts-html.xml src/share/org/apache/struts/action RequestProcessor.java src/share/org/apache/struts/config ForwardConfig.java src/share/org/apache/struts/taglib TagUtils.java src/share/org/apache/struts/util RequestUtils.java src/test/org/apache/struts/util TestRequestUtils.java web/examples/WEB-INF struts-config.xml web/examples/WEB-INF/exercise struts-config.xml web/examples/exercise html-link.jsp web/exercise-taglib html-link.jsp web/exercise-taglib/WEB-INF web.xml Log: Apply additional patch per #24235 html:link tag plus module support submitted by Gary Ashley. Revision ChangesPath 1.75 +85 -9 jakarta-struts/doc/userGuide/struts-html.xml Index: struts-html.xml === RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-struts/doc/userGuide/struts-html.xml,v retrieving revision 1.74 retrieving revision 1.75 diff -u -r1.74 -r1.75 --- struts-html.xml 1 Feb 2004 18:53:05 - 1.74 +++ struts-html.xml 13 Feb 2004 11:07:54 - 1.75 @@ -1617,10 +1617,29 @@ codeforward/code attribute, the codehref/code attribute, or the codepage/code attribute./p - /info - /attribute + +pAdditionally, you can specify a codemodule/code prefix +for linking to other modules./p + +/info + /attribute + + attribute +namemodule/name +requiredfalse/required +rtexprvaluetrue/rtexprvalue +info +pPrefix name of a codeModule/code that +contains the action mapping for the codeAction/code +that is specified by the codeaction/code attribute. +You strongmust/strong specify an codeaction/code +attribute for this to have an effect./p + +pstrongNote: /strongUse to map to the default module./p + /info + /attribute - attribute + attribute nameanchor/name requiredfalse/required rtexprvaluetrue/rtexprvalue @@ -3036,8 +3055,27 @@ strongmust/strong specify the codeaction/code, codepage/code attribute or the codesrc/code attribute./p - /info -/attribute + +pAdditionally, you can specify a codemodule/code prefix +for linking to other modules./p + +/info + /attribute + + attribute +namemodule/name +requiredfalse/required +rtexprvaluetrue/rtexprvalue +info +pPrefix name of a codeModule/code that +contains the action mapping for the codeAction/code +that is specified by the codeaction/code attribute. +You strongmust/strong specify an codeaction/code +attribute for this to have an effect./p + +pstrongNote: /strongUse to map to the default module./p + /info + /attribute attribute nameparamName/name @@ -3487,8 +3525,27 @@ codeforward/code attribute, the codehref/code attribute, the codelinkName/code attribute, or the codepage/code attribute./p - /info -/attribute + +pAdditionally, you can specify a codemodule/code prefix +for linking to other modules./p + +/info + /attribute + + attribute +namemodule/name +requiredfalse/required +rtexprvaluetrue/rtexprvalue +info +pPrefix name of a codeModule/code that +contains the action mapping for the codeAction/code +
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 24235] - Secure html:link tag, plus module support.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24235. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24235 Secure html:link tag, plus module support. [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-13 11:12 --- Thanks, Gary. This seems fine as it stands, though we should decide whether / should be supported as a reference to the default module. In the Action form, either or / can be used, but with the page form a NPE is exposed. (See the page block on the html-link page.) My own preference would be to support both, since that would help reduce support requests :) I'm going to link this to #25855 for recordkeeping purposes, but I'd still consider it open pending a decision on and /. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 25855 *** - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 25855] - ContextRelative/PagePattern issues
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25855. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25855 ContextRelative/PagePattern issues [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-13 11:12 --- *** Bug 24235 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26413] - Indexed Field Date Validation Allows Invalid Dates
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26413. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26413 Indexed Field Date Validation Allows Invalid Dates [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-13 11:25 --- Thanks, Niall! If you were able to drum up a test instance for the examples/validator application demonstrating that the validator will not stop at the first null value for indexed fields, we'd be happy to have that as well. :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26413] - Indexed Field Date Validation Allows Invalid Dates
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26413. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26413 Indexed Field Date Validation Allows Invalid Dates --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-13 12:01 --- I know you are right and I did have a quick look at doing that hoping to copy an existing struts validator test - but unfortunately there arn't any and I haven't used junit before. I am snowed under with my current project at the moment, but will try have a go at a test in the next couple of weeks, but its not a promise. I did set up my own small test harness and I tested each of the FieldChecks methods I changed with a valid value, an invalid value a blank value and a null value. I also run tests for the Date and Integer validations in my current struts project verifying that indexed fields failed with a nightly build, but passed when I switched in the patched version of FieldChecks. Niall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26782] - JavaScriptValidatorTag produces invalid JavaScript function name when form is subclass of ValidatorActionForm
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26782. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26782 JavaScriptValidatorTag produces invalid JavaScript function name when form is subclass of ValidatorActionForm [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26920] New: - Add ability to manipulate a definition's path with a Controller
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26920. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26920 Add ability to manipulate a definition's path with a Controller Summary: Add ability to manipulate a definition's path with a Controller Product: Struts Version: Nightly Build Platform: Other URL: http://raibledesigns.com/page/rd?anchor=tiles_tips_o_the _day OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: Enhancement Priority: Other Component: Tiles framework AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd love to see the ability to change the path attribute of a Tile's definition with a Controller. Currently, the only way to do this is to have the definition use an action as its path and then do the processing there. This is not that flexible in other frameworks - so adding this would be nice. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26920] - Add ability to manipulate a definition's path with a Controller
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26920. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26920 Add ability to manipulate a definition's path with a Controller --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-13 17:36 --- We've been talking for a while about how to improve the post-action processing -- I wonder if we should consider this a bit more broadly. We have talked about a general ViewController -- I don't know if this could be generalized to include Tiles but not be bound to it. In struts-chain, the way the Tiles implementation works is to actually replace the ForwardConfig which the action put into the context (which has a Tiles path) with a newly created one which has the path to the root Tile JSP. It seems like in that environment you could have another Chain command which did something like what you want, or just to extend the TilesPreProcessor command to be a bit smarter. It's hard to know how much should be piled into the current RequestProcessor when the Chain ComposableRequestProcessor is getting close to prime time. Just thought I'd add this to the record. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
