I use #2 quite a bit, and I'm not in any sort of portlet environment. I just have multiple <ww:action> tags in my JSPs.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hai Pham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Re: Re: Action invocation > Hi all, > > I think there are two major reasons why Rickard wants > to discard URL with .action. > > 1. to get declarative security working > 2. to make it possible to invoke multiple read-only > actions within a page (in portlet environment for > example) > > IMO, only #1 is reaonable. Still, lots of us already > implement authentitation filter to get around the > prob. with the path. That's not to say that we need > not to fix that, but IMO there should be better way > then getting rid of .action URL. > > #2 is most often applicable in portlet environment. In > my project I don't need to use any action tag or > #action macro. I believe this is true for the > majority of other projects. Even if you want to do > that, there are althernatives like Sitemesh or even > <ww:include> tag. > > Rickard's comment about .action URL unstable (for > bookmarking) and exposing the implementation is > unconvincing to me. In fact, .action URL is more > stable than a .jsp or something like that. You can map > an action to various views like jsp, velocity... So > even when you change the view name or view type, the > URL is still the same. > > Well, that's my thought. I just hope that if you > insist on these new implementation (related to portlet > thingy), you still keep .action URL around and that > its performance wouldn't be degraded. > > --- Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > OK, > I must be missing something here... I'm sure we > > discussed this > > previously and the only solid argument in support of > > the arbitrary paths was > > for skinning applications. I still can't see how the > > path/skinning > > functionality can be supported by having urls that > > end with .jsp instead of > > .action. Can you explain further (with an example > > perhaps) what you mean by > > "If .action invocations are not allowed then it's > > possible to use > > declarative security"? How does your approach allow > > web.xml to be configured > > to protect a path such as */admin/*? > > > > "Rickard Öberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > > message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Chris Miller wrote: > > > Remind me again why .action causes problems with > > declaritive security? > > > Surely the real problem is that Webwork currently > > doesn't care if an > > > arbitrary path is specified in the URL. ie: > > > http://www.me.com/abc123/admin/deleteUser.action > > is treated the same as > > > http://www.me.com/admin/deleteUser.action - which > > makes it very messy to > > > nail down in web.xml. > > > > That *is* the problem. And itt's not messy; it's > > impossible! No matter > > how you construct your web.xml I can circumvent it > > by doing an arbitrary > > path like so: > > > http://www.me.com/jkldsdfglkjglkdhgdklhg/asdasdasd/deleteUser.action > > > > If .action invocations are not allowed then it's > > possible to use > > declarative security. Plus if execution of actions > > is only possible if a > > URL has been previously associated with it during > > form creation, then > > it's even safer. > > > > /Rickard > > > > -- > > Rickard Öberg > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Senselogic > > > > Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > ===== > ------------------- > Hai Pham Quang > ------------------- > > __________________________________________________________ > Lčche-vitrine ou lčche-écran ? > magasinage.yahoo.ca > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
