--- Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm just making this up as I go, but what if there were an optional
> >servlet init param which could consist of one or more class names,
> >where each class implemented a "StrutsConfigurator" interface. Then
> >in servlet.init(), the servlet coul
I'm just making this up as I go, but what if there were an optional
servlet init param which could consist of one or more class names,
where each class implemented a "StrutsConfigurator" interface. Then
in servlet.init(), the servlet could instantiate each and pass
itself to the configure meth
> If you did that, how would it know whether to use the 'path' or the
'name' to look up the validation rules?
Wouldn't it alway use the 'name' it looked up from the given action ?
Is there a time it would ever use the 'path' ? I guess I don't understand ?
What if you were using ValidatorActionFor
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Germuska > At 4:35 PM + 4/3/04, Robert Leland wrote:
> >Every since I applied the patch to allow the validator to work,
> >with multiple forms, there has been one thing that has bothered me:
> >
> >The JavaScriptTag requires the name of the form.
> >
>
At 4:35 PM + 4/3/04, Robert Leland wrote:
Every since I applied the patch to allow the validator to work,
with multiple forms, there has been one thing that has bothered me:
The JavaScriptTag requires the name of the form.
So now both the form name and the action name are required in the
JSP,
Every since I applied the patch to allow the validator to work,
with multiple forms, there has been one thing that has bothered me:
The JavaScriptTag requires the name of the form.
So now both the form name and the action name are required in the JSP, and this
increases the coupling.
How about
Why does struts-documentation include all the jar files for struts
when it contains no JSP's or struts-config.xml ?
Not having to run tomcat to view the DOCS is a big Plus.
-ROb
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I agree that we should throw the exception. IMO, it should fail fast and
> > loud at startup if you've misconfigured the validations.
>
> I know this change has been checked in already, but wanted to add my +1
> any
