Yep, that was part of my argument to Dakota Jack as I recall... Then
again, in some situations one could see it as being quite advantageous
to always get a fresh copy from the server, and this approach should
ensure that.
Good point about the security considerations... In fact, I seem to
remem
I've heard of people storing all but one entry page (which would be
needed at a minimum no matter what). I'm not sure what the typical
answer is from people that use this technique though.
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
Neil
I'm not an advocate of this approach, so I'm not sure I'm the one to
answer this question... Where is Dakota Jack when we need him?!? ;)
That being said...
Aside from the obvious security benefits, I often here caching as a big
reason. Jack and I had a debate two weeks or so ago about whether s
> I understand the security benefits for a JSP page, but are
> there any for CSS pages, JS files, or images? What does it
> help with statistics?
Some people/sites restricts access to some images (and other things), as
they could
contain some information worth protection.
As for statistics: Y
> I understand the security benefits for a JSP page, but are
> there any for CSS pages, JS files, or images? What does it
> help with statistics?
Some people/sites restricts access to some images (and other things), as
they could
contain some information worth protection.
As for statistics: Y
I hide JSPs under WEB-INF, but I leave my images, .css and .js files
outside so they can be served by the web server.
I use forwards in struts to handle url rewriting, instead of linking
directly to the css from a .jsp eg
Unless there is a reason (eg restricted access etc) I wouldn't use an
I've been meaning to ask a related question. Do people do this for
absolutely *every* page? In particular, what about help pages, FAQs,
etc. that have no processing needed?
Jeff Beal wrote:
Quite a few people seem to do this. Quite a few people do not. I
think it qualifies as "widely practic
What would be the benefits to doing this? (just curious)
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:37:45 -0500, Frank W. Zammetti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, something like:
>
>
>
> ... will call your Action, which presumably retrieves the referenced
> image and returns it. You can do this for stylesheet
Very cool and thanks!!
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:38 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Hiding pages under WEB-INF
Jarnot Voytek Contr AU/SC wrote:
> Right, js, css, and image fi
Jarnot Voytek Contr AU/SC wrote:
> Right, js, css, and image files don't belong under web-inf.
I know someone who will disagree vigorously (where are you D.J.?!?) :)
Seriously though, many people DO use this technique, and you can in fact
put everything under it, even the js, css, img, etc. conten
Right, js, css, and image files don't belong under web-inf.
--
Voytek Jarnot
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Beal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 3:27 PM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Hiding pages under WEB-INF
Quite a few people seem to do this. Quite a few people do not. I
think it qualifies as "widely practiced".
As for the stylesheets, the browser won't be able to pull them out of
WEB-INF. (That's the point of "hiding" things under WEB-INF.)
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:02:30 -0600, Burns, Scott <[EMA
12 matches
Mail list logo
