Re: [struts-dev] Alternate submit tag...

2008-03-18 Thread Antonio Petrelli
2008/3/17, Dale Newfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We can avoid the JS requirement if we make the submit button's submitted value complex enough to encode the names of the namespace and actionname. The problem is that the value of the submit button is what the users sees. You don't want your user

Re: [struts-dev] Alternate submit tag...

2008-03-18 Thread Dale Newfield
Antonio Petrelli wrote: 2008/3/17, Dale Newfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We can avoid the JS requirement if we make the submit button's submitted value complex enough to encode the names of the namespace and actionname. The problem is that the value of the submit button is what the users sees.

Re: [struts-dev] Alternate submit tag...

2008-03-17 Thread Jeromy Evans
Dale Newfield wrote: Jeromy Evans wrote: Shouldn't validation just be fixed? What you really want to say in the s:submit tag is run this action instead what we're currently saying is run this method instead. Because of this, you're getting different validation than you want because

Re: [struts-dev] Alternate submit tag...

2008-03-17 Thread Dale Newfield
Antonio Petrelli wrote: Sincerely I don't like to put js where it is not necessary. Agreed, although I'm much less worried about this today than I was 5 years ago. If you don't know it, Struts 1 has LookupDispatchAction that makes a reverse-lookup in a resource bundle to retrieve the key

Re: [struts-dev] Alternate submit tag...

2008-03-16 Thread Dale Newfield
Jeromy Evans wrote: Shouldn't validation just be fixed? What you really want to say in the s:submit tag is run this action instead what we're currently saying is run this method instead. Because of this, you're getting different validation than you want because changing the method doesn't