> I thought the whole point was that there would be only one forward
> and the action would always forward to that forward? In that case,
> you could count on using the first one.
Just thinking that if an anonymous/default ActionForward were allowed, then
it could also be useful for other actions. In any case, it's better not to
allow a situation where the behaviour is unspecified.
>> You'd probably need to add a method such as getDefaultForward()
>> to retrieve it.
>
> This part seems to be adding complexity to something which was meant
> to be very simple.
I think it might actually be possible to reduce the visible complexity by
doing that. e.g.
<action path="/myAction"
type="org.apache.struts.actions.SuccessAction">
<forward path="/myPage.jsp"/>
</action>
SuccessAction may not now be best name, but let's stick with it for the
moment.
To be really radical, we could absorb the behaviour into Action, and have it
check for a default ActionForward and use that, if found. That way there's
no need for a SuccessAction at all. Then you could just do:
<action path="/myAction"
type="org.apache.struts.action.Action">
<forward path="/myPage.jsp"/>
</action>
If Action actually does something useful, could we go crazy and default the
type as well?
<action path="/myAction">
<forward path="/myPage.jsp"/>
</action>
Now that's simple. Especially if you allow a global default forward...
<action path="/myAction"/>
Probably not quite so useful, but nicely minimal!
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
