Who mentioned that one Craig? I know that I said my XML file will have two
or more forwarding JSP pages per action, and the action class returns a
"result" string that is used by the controller servlet to look up the page
to froward to from the action DOM object returned during the init method. Is
that what your referring to?
If so, what I had suggested and have employed thus far is each action
returns a string to the controller servlet. This string would be based on
some result, and would match one string (out of one or more) in the action
DOM object that contains one or more "result" strings mapped to JSP pages.
Its actually pretty simple.
Then again..maybe your not referring to this? ;)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A mailing list about Java Server Pages specification and reference
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Craig R. McClanahan
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 9:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: model 2 servlet mapping question
>
>
> Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> > <kevin>
> > >
> > > So the question then is, is it really worth it to use the
> forward() call
> > > over sendRedirect() if at most we will have 1000 to 3000
> people a DAY (not
> > > hour, not minute) use our site? How much faster is it to use
> > > forward() over
> > > sendRedirect() as far as each client on our site sees it?
> > >
> > </kevin>
> >
> > correct me if i'm wrong, but in addition to incurring a round
> trip to the
> > server, you also cannot pass your request and response objects
> and whatever
> > beans they may hold if you use sendRedirect(). in order to
> pass on info,
> > you'd either have to have it in the session or put in the url. since
> > forward() stays at the server, you get all your request data/beans
> > transported to the next page for free.
> >
>
> Chris is correct ... you also give up request attributes when you
> switch to
> sendRedirect(), because the redirected request comes in
> separately. IMHO this can
> be a big issue, even on intranet sites where the performance
> differences are not as
> large.
>
> One of the interesting suggestions on the "Model 2" threads was having the
> configuration information associated with a particular mapping
> from request URI to
> action class also include the URI of the "next" JSP page (or
> maybe two of them --
> one for success and one for failure). That way, you can change
> the physical names
> of your JSP pages without having to modify the action classes
> themselves, and also
> without having to worry about what the referer page was. I'm
> playing with a
> framework concept based on this approach ... look for more info later.
>
> >
> > o happy day,
> > chris
> >
>
> Craig McClanahan
>
> ==================================================================
> =========
> To unsubscribe: mailto [EMAIL PROTECTED] with body: "signoff
> JSP-INTEREST".
> Some relevant FAQs on JSP/Servlets can be found at:
>
> http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/faq.html
> http://www.esperanto.org.nz/jsp/jspfaq.html
> http://www.jguru.com/jguru/faq/faqpage.jsp?name=JSP
> http://www.jguru.com/jguru/faq/faqpage.jsp?name=Servlets
>
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe: mailto [EMAIL PROTECTED] with body: "signoff JSP-INTEREST".
Some relevant FAQs on JSP/Servlets can be found at:
http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/faq.html
http://www.esperanto.org.nz/jsp/jspfaq.html
http://www.jguru.com/jguru/faq/faqpage.jsp?name=JSP
http://www.jguru.com/jguru/faq/faqpage.jsp?name=Servlets
