"Steve Raeburn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > You're right <action forward=""> is module relative (despite what it says in > the Javadoc). However, I don't see how it can used with a context relative > path.
You might want to take a look at the 'forwardPattern' attribute, and the RequestUtils.forwardURL() method (especially the JavaDoc for the latter). -- Martin Cooper > > There is no contextRelative attribute on the action config so you don't get > to choose (or change) how your forward works. > > Of the three ways of defining forwards that you identified only one, > <forward>, works flexibly with modules and that's the one that we don't ship > an action for with Struts. > > SuccessAction works flexibly with modules, it's tool friendly, it's simple > to understand and its configuration is consistent with almost all other > actions. > > Steve > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: August 4, 2003 7:03 AM > > To: Struts Developers List > > Subject: RE: Addition of two new actions > > > > > > Thanks for the link. I'll respond to that message here: > > > > > I'm also throwing an exception if the "success" ActionForward is not > > found to make the configuration problem very clear. > > > > ForwardAction also throws an exception if the path is not found. > > > > > ForwardAction and using 'forward= ' on the ActionMapping both require a > > > context relative path. > > > > That's not accurate, <forward> and <action forward=""> both default to > > module relative paths. <forward contextRelative="true"> changes the > > default. ForwardAction itself always returns a context relative > > ActionForward but I'd rather see that changed than add a new class. > > > > > In addition, tools vendors may be better able to validate a regular > > > ActionFoward configuration than the ForwardAction where the path is > > > specified via the all-purpose 'parameter'. In order to validate the path > > as > > > a parameter, you require knowledge of the Action class whereas the path > > of > > > an ActionForward definition can be more easily validated. (I'm basing > > this > > > on my experience with WebSphere Studio). > > > > There are many ways of defining forwards: > > <action path="/input.do" forward="/jsp/input.jsp"/> > > > > <forward name="foo" path="/jsp/input.jsp"/> > > > > <action type="o.a.s.actions.ForwardAction" path="/input.do" > > parameter="/jsp/input.jsp"/> > > > > Some of these allow better path validation than others but I don't see why > > we need yet another Action class when we could just improve upon the > > existing options. > > > > David > > > > > Steve > > > > --- Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: August 3, 2003 3:02 PM > > > > To: Struts Developers List > > > > Subject: Re: Addition of two new actions > > > ... > > > > I still don't see a need for a SuccessAction in the first place. Why > > > is > > > > it any better than using a ForwardAction? > > > > > > I did expand on my reasons, but there's been a lot of traffic so maybe > > > it > > > scrolled by: > > > > > http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > arta.apach > > e.org&msgNo=19706 > > > > Erik's message also adds to this. > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
