Relying on the request dispatcher ties you to the Servlet API. Furthermore, extensions are inadequate as more than one "handler", to use Joe's terminology, might be interested in a particular extension. If the URL idea is collectively shot down, I vote for Joe's idea of adding an attribute the the forward element. In either case, 100% backwards compatibility should be maintained.
Don On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Ted Husted wrote: > Don Brown wrote: > > Yes, that is another way to handle it. I never liked that approach since > > it meant those urls could be accessed directly and I feel everything > > should be behind Struts and its security. Besides, that approach ties > > your app to the Servlet API. > > What's the Servlet API got to do with it? > > Instead of a .xls or .jsp reference, you could just as easily reference > a .html or .php or .pdf resource. > > Of course, the others wouldn't have access to the Java contexts (at > least not this side of JSR 223). > > But, mapping presentation engines to extensions is the de jure approach. > > -Ted. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
