Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Recommendation:
--------------

If we were not imminently trying to release a 1.1 final, I would be
tempted to design and work out a strategy for dealing with this ambiguity
problem, and hash out what the right behavior should be in each case.
However, at this point in time, I'm going to suggest that we resolve this
one as LATER and put it into the "1.2 Family" camp.  We're going to need
to deal with it in a 1.2 time frame anyway, especially if we try to
implement any sort of "module configuration inheritance" mechanisms, which
are only going to make the problem worse.

In a 2.0 time frame, the lesson I draw from this is that we will want to
be very specific in defining how mapping of logical paths to physical
paths is performed, including a way to distinguish what kind of logical
path you're talking about (so that you can apply different rules for view
components and for action components, for example).

Does this sound like a plan that we (committers) can agree to?
+1

The ActionForward object does need to be extended, but this is not the iteration to get started on that.

We might be able to resolve several issues, whether modules are being used or not, if the ActionFoward could specify either an "action" or an "page" property, following the current design of the link tag.

The key use case is forwarding to an action that "fronts" a page (it needs to seed the request with certain objects before displaying the page), the token I use for the ActionForward ("\something.do") is not the same token I used for the ActionMapping path ("\something").

So my first suggestion, for a future iteration, would be to deprecate "path" in favor of separate "page" and "action" properties, which would be resolved in the same manner as the link tag.

As with most things, Struts has always contained the right pattern, we just haven't applied to every case (yet) =:0)

-Ted.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to