Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Re: Action invocation

2003-01-03 Thread Rickard Öberg
Matt Ho wrote: I look at it this way. There are a couple accepted ways of implementing declarative security: 1. Securing based on path (Servlets for example) 2. Securing based on authenticated role (EJBs for example) There are of course proprietary implementations. Ideally, I would love

RE: [OS-webwork] Re: Re: Action invocation

2003-01-03 Thread Matt Ho
This would essentially mean that XWork would have to support these two invocation types: /action/bar /foo/bar.action I'm probably not explaining myself well. To me, these are both examples of path based security, struts style. Your second example with the jsp was what I was considering role

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Re: Action invocation

2003-01-03 Thread Rickard berg
Chris Miller wrote: What would happen if the skins had to be explicitly defined in the configuration, or if none were defined then XWork would default to pinned paths? Then there would be an outcry of too much to configure.. waaah. :-) That way people that were not using the skinning would be

FW: [OS-webwork] Re: Re: Action invocation

2003-01-03 Thread Jason Carreira
Did anyone have any thoughts on this skin / package config stuff I sent this morning? -Original Message- From: Jason Carreira Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 9:47 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Re: Re: Action invocation -Original Message- From: Rickard

[OS-webwork] Re: Re: Action invocation

2003-01-02 Thread Chris Miller
OK, I must be missing something here... I'm sure we discussed this previously and the only solid argument in support of the arbitrary paths was for skinning applications. I still can't see how the path/skinning functionality can be supported by having urls that end with .jsp instead of .action.

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Re: Action invocation

2003-01-02 Thread Patrick Lightbody
I use #2 quite a bit, and I'm not in any sort of portlet environment. I just have multiple ww:action tags in my JSPs. - Original Message - From: Hai Pham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Re: Action invocation

Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Re: Action invocation

2003-01-02 Thread Hai Pham
Hi all, I think there are two major reasons why Rickard wants to discard URL with .action. 1. to get declarative security working 2. to make it possible to invoke multiple read-only actions within a page (in portlet environment for example) IMO, only #1 is reaonable. Still, lots of us already

RE: [OS-webwork] Re: Re: Action invocation

2003-01-02 Thread Matt Ho
I think there are two major reasons why Rickard wants to discard URL with .action. 1. to get declarative security working [snip] IMO, only #1 is reaonable. Still, lots of us already implement authentitation filter to get around the prob. with the path. That's not to say that we need