This seems a very logical thing to do..Or may be the controller should have a attribute like igonre="true/false" so that at subDefinitionlevel u may or may not specify the same.. You should open a changeRequest at bugzilla for the same so that this is implemented in next version atleast..
-----Original Message----- From: teknokrat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: tiles and tiles controllers Currently i have two page definitions - one for inheritence and one for the controller. The controller is a TilesAction - I suppose i could create a TilesAction that did nothing and have the inherited pages use that but it seems an unnecessary hack. It would be good if setting the controllerUrl to "" was OK or even a switch to disable it. Mike Jasnowski wrote: > I suppose one possibility is to have a noop controller, noop.jsp, or use > the controller attribute on each tile rather than the definition, which I > think is less desireable than having it at the def level. > > -----Original Message----- > From: teknokrat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 8:14 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: tiles and tiles controllers > > > I have a page definition that uses a tiles controller. This works fine. > However, i now want to defines several pages that extend the first page > but i do not want them using the controller ( or any controller). can > this be done? leaving urlController blank gives errors. > > thanks > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
