gotcha. we weren't actually using the forwards before, but i've just
tested it an it works nicely, so i'm going to spend a little extra time
trying to clean that up so that we lookup urls by forward name rather
than putting in the full path.
-- Allen
Dave Johnson wrote:
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
>
