I am very ashamed to report that I didn't get very far. (too much snow
to shovel last weekend) I was able to analyze what each type of url
would need, i.e. portlet vs. normal url. I think our best best is to
have a data bean that encapsulates non-stardard stuff for each url type
along with a seperate bean that captures the standard stuff.
Generic stuff:
action
namespace
method
scheme
anchor
includeParams
Portlet specific data:
portletMode
portletUrlType
This is just a start, but it gives you an idea of what I'm thinking. I
also noticed how asymmetric the PortalURLHelper and the URLHelper are.
Most of the refactoring would probably happen in these classes, so the
final API would probably be something of a mix between the 2. Just some
random thoughts for you to chew on. I'll post more if I find some time
to look into this some more. I'd like to come up with a proposed API
for everyone (mostly me and you Don) to review. Once we agree on that,
the implementation should be pretty straightforward.
Tom
Don Brown wrote:
I _love_ this idea as it is been something I've wanted to tackle
myself for a while now. I'm very interested in your progress, so let
us know what you find.
Don
Tom Schneider wrote:
Based on the portlet plugin proposal and some work I've been doing
with the table tags, I thought I would propose a refactor of the URL
building for struts2. Right now, struts2 has great support for
taking on incoming request and mapping it to the core elements of the
framework (i.e. namespace, action, method, etc.) in the ActionMapper
interface. It seems like we should be doing the same for building
URL's. This would allow the url tag to be completely dumb about how
url's are built up. Right now, the url tag has specific logic to
determine if the request is a portlet request or not and uses
PortletUrlHelper or UrlHelper respectively. If the url building was
pluggable, we would have a default url builder that would be
configured to build either portlet url's or regular url's. This
would allow us to easily extract the portlet support out into a
separate plugin. It would also allow 3rd part tags (like table tags)
transparent, built-in portlet support with almost no effort. We
could also support other types of url's like Restful urls. (Right
now, I'm not sure how the url tag supports restful url's)
I'll take a preliminary look at this later today, but I was curious
if anyone thoughts, pro or con regarding this.
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
