Suppose, Joe, that we have first.jsp and second.jsp, FirstActionForm.java and SecondActionForm.java. We call MyAction.java as the action for <html:form> in first.jsp and want to setup the values in second.jsp via SecondActionForm.java. How would you configure the <action-mapping> for this use case, which I think is the most common use case there is?
Jack On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:43:28 -0600, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 1:13 PM -0800 3/17/05, Dakota Jack 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? > > well, no, and I don't see why you can't using this arbitrary property > map. I'm not sure what you think the best way for getting form > objects from the properties (I think the framework could make it > easier than it is now), but I think it should all be possible. > > And the description I posted could have any number of > FormPrepCommands -- something I have never needed myself but which > was pointed out as a need on the list. I had originally envisioned > just setting "name" and "scope" on the ForwardConfig itself, but one > or more people brought up the use case you suggest, and my thought is > that the per-forward chain supports that pretty readily. If you > think I've missed something, please let me know. > > Joe > > -- > Joe Germuska > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blog.germuska.com > "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex > -- "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]
