RE: calling actions directly

2003-06-06 Thread Kamholz, Keith (corp-staff) USX
I've noticed that I can do that too. I'm not expert, but I'm guessing that it's not an issue, and this behavior is fine (as long as it is login protected if necessary). I'm also GUESSING that the rule that actions can only be called from JSP pages is made with the assumption that you're taking

RE: calling actions directly

2003-06-06 Thread Kruse, Matt
I read that one of the things about struts is the actions are only able to be called from the pages directly. Ie, you shouldn't be able to bookmark the actions themselves like: http://myhost/myaction.do Where did you hear this? That's totally not true - any action can be called directly as

Re: calling actions directly

2003-06-06 Thread Vic Cekvenich
+ 1 It helps if people read one of the many books on Struts or one of the many tutorials on Struts or take one of the many instructor lead hands on training classes on Struts (I have many competitors now, just google for Struts training). (I think we need a bit of RTFM) .V ps/ot: Just hours

Re: calling actions directly

2003-06-06 Thread Brian McSweeney
a result of the action? cheers, Brian - Original Message - From: Kruse, Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:12 PM Subject: RE: calling actions directly I read that one of the things about struts is the actions are only

Re: calling actions directly

2003-06-06 Thread Nathan Pitts
Message - From: Kruse, Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:12 PM Subject: RE: calling actions directly I read that one of the things about struts is the actions are only able to be called from the pages directly. Ie, you shouldn't

RE: calling actions directly

2003-06-06 Thread Karr, David
Mailing List Subject: Re: calling actions directly Brian, If you put all your jsp's inside a the WEB-INF directory, they will not be accessible directly -- only through an action. I think this is part of the jsp specification that nothing can be directly served out of this special directory

Re: calling actions directly

2003-06-06 Thread Brian McSweeney
thanks Nathan! makes perfect sense :-) Brian - Original Message - From: Nathan Pitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: Re: calling actions directly Brian, If you put all your jsp's inside a the WEB-INF

RE: calling actions directly

2003-06-06 Thread Kamholz, Keith (corp-staff) USX
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:09 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: RE: calling actions directly Unfortunately, not all web containers will support this. There was apparent disagreement on the interpretation of the specification in this area. In particular

Re: calling actions directly

2003-06-06 Thread Nathan Pitts
into a security constraint on a role that no user is set to. -Original Message- From: Nathan Pitts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 8:02 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: calling actions directly Brian, If you put all your jsp's inside a the WEB-INF directory

Re: calling actions directly

2003-06-06 Thread Erik Price
Karr, David wrote: The alternative is to put all JSP pages into a security constraint on a role that no user is set to. Or you could put all JSP pages into a directory that is protected by a filter which both logs the access attempt (including all relevant data such as IP address, params,

RE: calling actions directly

2003-06-06 Thread Steve Raeburn
Websphere 5 allows you to place JSPs under the WEB-INF directory. So did Websphere 4. It's not a trick but, as Nathan said, part of the specification. The reason some containers didn't support it for version 2.2 is that the spec was a little ambiguous. It has been clarified in 2.3 as being

RE: calling actions directly

2003-06-06 Thread Steve Raeburn
Websphere 5 allows you to place JSPs under the WEB-INF directory. So did Websphere 4. It's not a trick but, as Nathan said, part of the specification. The reason some containers didn't support it for version 2.2 is that the spec was a little ambiguous. It has been clarified in 2.3 as being