boxed wrote:
I will run the action without a result a few times to start off to make sure
it compiles and goes through to success and so forth. I also have some (very
few) actions that don't actually have a view at all, but write directly to
the servlet output stream. Yes I know it's ugly, I hate
-Original Message-
From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The argument against .action invocation, then, is only with regard to
declarative security. Would it be ok to declare what roles
may access it
in xwork.xml? (both on action and package level)
That's the argument
Jason Carreira wrote:
That's the argument against .action invocation with any path. If we
pin actions to certain paths in the config files, as I've proposed,
then this is not an issue.
True, but it's more configuration to do. If it can be avoided that'd be
nice.
One nice thing about that is
Jason Carreira wrote:
As opposed to the extra configuration to assign roles to packages and
coordinate them with the roles in web.xml? I really don't like the
idea of putting security information into xwork. If we pinned
packages to URL paths, and protected the paths using J2EE declarative
, 2003 3:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
-Original Message-
From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
That is how I have implemented the filter currently: if there's an
action for the JSP, then execute it, otherwise do nothing
(i.e. run
design, implementation and hosting
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mobile: 770.480.1547
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Rickard Oberg
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 1:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork
It would seem some folks are assuming that all requests will go via the
servlet and therefore if myAction is deemed to be an action then it
will be executed. This obviously has a high overhead factor.
On Thursday, January 2, 2003, at 08:47 PM, Rickard Öberg wrote:
Jason Carreira wrote:
I
servlet as
its entry point.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Nicholson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 5:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
It would seem some folks are assuming that all requests will
go via
Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Actually, all this talk of filters, etc. makes me wonder if it *is*
supposed to be WebWork 2.0 as opposed to XWork. Applying filters to a
Swing app would be, um, great fun.
Yes and no. Some of the stuff we're discussing here are definitely
web-centric, but others is not.
As opposed to what? This is a model-2 MVC framework. It uses a controller servlet as
its entry point.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Nicholson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 5:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
Jason Carreira wrote:
As opposed to what? This is a model-2 MVC framework. It uses a controller servlet as its entry point.
Using a controller servlet that intercepts all requests but only deals
with some of the requests is going to be unnecessary overhead.
/Rickard
Jason Carreira wrote:
Maybe, but is it an acceptable level of complexity for the benefits
(simplictiy, security, etc) it provides? For instance, I would like
to have all of my JSP pages under WEB-INF, so they can only be used
from the servlet, rather than being accessed directly, which would
most
I'm pretty sure I read an article about doing it... Anybody else have any experience
doing this?
-Original Message-
From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 10:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
Jason
, 2003 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
I'm pretty sure I read an article about doing it... Anybody else have any
experience doing this?
-Original Message-
From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 10:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
AM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
I'm pretty sure I read an article about doing it... Anybody else have
any
experience doing this?
-Original Message-
From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 10:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
Why is it more convenient than tying it to a result page? Or do you run
the action without a result?
I will run the action without a result a few times to start off to make sure
it compiles and goes through to success and so forth. I also have some (very
few) actions that don't actually have a
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WebWork [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 5:38 AM
Subject: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
I'm currently looking at how actions in a web setting are to be invoked
in XWork.
I've seen two main ways
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
This sounds scary to me -- I'm not entirely convinced that URLs with .action
in them are terribly bad. I do have cases where 4 different actions use that
same SUCCESS view:
ShowDocumentListA.success = doc_list.jsp
ShowDocumentListB.success = doc_list.jsp
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 06:37:03PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
This sounds scary to me -- I'm not entirely convinced that URLs with
.action
in them are terribly bad. I do have cases where 4 different actions use
that
same SUCCESS view:
ShowDocumentListA.success
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
They have very, VERY different ways to retrieve the data. But yes, I suppose
one could design differently.
Ok. Damn. Removing .action invocations would have made things much
simpler, especially for the declarative security users.
/Rickard
Philipp Meier wrote:
I often come to having the same view for different actions. One case is
debugging and because I use XSLT-Stylesheets as views, I often have some
rather generic stylesheet that formats different actions. But I don't
understand how this relates to why .action-URL are bad.
I don't understand why URLs need to have .action OR .jsp. In my
mind, direct requests to resources is okay for static files, but all
action-related requests should flow through the action mappings.
*If* actions are always tied to a path (or paths), *and* there is a
filter controller, then:
a)
Chris Nokleberg wrote:
I don't understand why URLs need to have .action OR .jsp. In my
mind, direct requests to resources is okay for static files, but all
action-related requests should flow through the action mappings.
The point is to try and avoid .action URL's for mentioned reasons. Since
: Thursday, January 02, 2003 20:00
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
Chris Nokleberg wrote:
I don't understand why URLs need to have .action OR .jsp. In my
mind, direct requests to resources is okay for static files, but all
action-related requests should flow through the action mappings
Jason Carreira wrote:
I'm thinking we could use your idea of packages, and map packages to certain paths, then you could easily secure by package.
What if you have 10 actions in a package, and 3 are public, 4 are
allowed by one role, and 6 are allowed by another (i.e. there's an
overlap). How
I believe Rickard has made it clear both will be available.
- Original Message -
From: boxed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
Pretty much, yes. There's no real trouble with allowing .action
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:00:41PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
Chris Nokleberg wrote:
I don't understand why URLs need to have .action OR .jsp. In my
mind, direct requests to resources is okay for static files, but all
action-related requests should flow through the action mappings.
The
]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
Jason Carreira wrote:
I'm thinking we could use your idea of packages, and map
packages to
certain paths, then you could easily secure by package.
What if you have 10 actions in a package, and 3 are public, 4 are
allowed by one role, and 6
Jason Carreira wrote:
You make a base package with the 3, then 2 other packages which
extend the base package and add the actions for each role to its
respective package.
But then the actions will be packaged based on the security restrictins
instead of their belonging together-ness, which is
Chris Nokleberg wrote:
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:00:41PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
But one of the reasons to get rid of .action is that it exposes the
implementation. .jsp does the same thing!
Absolutely. But at least XWork would be hidden.
Why not allow for arbitrary
URLs, even when you
-Original Message-
From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
That is how I have implemented the filter currently: if there's an
action for the JSP, then execute it, otherwise do nothing
(i.e. run JSP
as usual).
/Rickard
I don't like the idea of exposing the view
boxed wrote:
I find having the actions available directly with the .action notation very
handy for developing/debugging. I am hoping you mean possible to avoid them
if you want. It sounds to me like you want to force users to not use the
.action notation, when it can definetely be useful.
Why
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 09:15:44PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
Chris Nokleberg wrote:
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:00:41PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
But one of the reasons to get rid of .action is that it exposes the
implementation. .jsp does the same thing!
Absolutely. But at least
) to find the package (myPackage) and then find
the action mapping (for myAction).
-Original Message-
From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 3:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
Jason Carreira wrote:
I
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 09:47:24PM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote:
Jason Carreira wrote:
I don't like the idea of exposing the view we're mapping to. What If
I want to change the view that is mapped from the action? I think it
would be better to have:
http://somehost.com/myPackage/myAction
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Action invocation
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
This sounds scary to me -- I'm not entirely convinced that URLs with
.action
in them are terribly bad. I do have cases where 4 different actions
For one thing, they
perform better. Another reason is that I have the same situation as Pat,
the same jsp is the success page for multiple actions. One final reason
is that the migration path from ww to xw for applications now requires
filters to handle the (automatic) migration from the old
Yes :)
On 3/1/03 7:38 AM, Rickard Öberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words:
Jason Carreira wrote:
I dunno. I would argue that if they can't be run by the same role, then they
don't belong together.
So if you've made this cool weblog thingy (as an example) where half of
the actions goes
38 matches
Mail list logo
