Oops. I forgot about forwards. Ideally, we'd use <roller:link> for all Struts URLs because it accepts forward names so we don't have hard-code *.do paths into the JSPs.
- Dave On 6/9/06, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<roller:link> was introduced to overcome shortcomings in Struts <html:link> tag. Then <c:url> came along. I think <c:url> is all we need. - Dave On 6/9/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, we currently have 3 ways in which urls are being constructed via > various jsp taglibs. Do we really need all of them? > > does the roller:link taglib provide any kind of special functionality? > can we EOL it in exchange for a more standard option like the struts > html:link or the even more standard c:url option? > > i'd prefer not do maintain our own implementations of things like > roller:link if it's not really necessary. > > the context for this question is that as I go through and update our > jsps with the new urls to our authoring/admin urls i wouldn't mind > tidying this up. > > -- Allen >
