But of course, this is not a "html:link" issue. More of a "<forward module="exercise" path="action.do" />" maybe?
Leonardo
Richard Hightower wrote:
+1 on <html:link module="exercise" action="welcome" /> from a not voting member.
-----Original Message----- From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:30 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: RE: Compartmentalization of Modules (was Re: [18111] et al)
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:00:55 -0600, Gary D Ashley Jr. wrote:
.e.: <html:link action="" module="" ...
It seemed that if you have action="" attribute, then module="" was the next logical step with making struts modular. For us, it certainly helped provide the glue in a very large data centric struts application. Large obviously relative to my situation, so more specifically: 20 modules, 10 state/local government agencies, 30 roles, 10,000 users (250 core 9am-5pm users), and 6 developers.
It seems modular link and rewrite tags are a nice step in the right direction. Well, just one perspective to consider.
Thanks.
Well, that's an interesting idea:
<html:link module="exercise" action="welcome" />
versus
<html:link action="/exercise/welcome" moduleRelative="false" />
The former does seem cleaner to me.
The trick being that the default value for module is the current module :)
If you've implemented one like this, tell me, where there any issues about using
<html:link module="" action="welcome" />
To indicate the "unnamed" default module?
-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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
