Without a concrete usecase, I doubt that I would. Without changing other aspects of the default request processing, I don't see how it would make a shred of difference.
The very best thing would be a patch to either the MailReader or Exercises example, that not only demonstrated the problem, but could also be used to test the solution. -Ted. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:13:20 -0800, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <SNIP> > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:55:17 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 9:58 AM -0800 3/17/05, Dakota Jack wrote: > > >Cool, I think. Do you mean you can do this with the <action-mapping>? > > > Sorry if this is a really stupid question. I have not looked at the > > >configuration of v1.3. If this is going to be possible, you will have > > >solved half the qusetions on the list. > > > > Yep: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=111970&view=rev > > original discussion thread: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.struts.devel/23510 > > ................ > > The model I have in mind right now for setting up forms, though, > > doesn't use the action mapping but rather links the form name to the > > ForwardConfig. It seems more natural to me to associate the set up > > with the destination, and it happens once in a while that you have > > more than one action which processes a request which all forward to > > the same response/view. > <SNIP> > > I would like to be able to set multiple forms in the <action-mapping>. > Is there any reason why you won't allow that? > > -- > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." > ~Dakota Jack~ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
