Yes, we would employ the same syntax for all the relevant tags. -Ted.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:28:14 -0600, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi wrote: > +1 on that too. > > > 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]
