On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Ted Husted wrote:
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:48:55 -0400
> From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Tiles And Struts
>
> > Note that Struts1.1 also require the TilesRequestProcessor to enable Tiles.
>
> In practice, I find that if you only use a * single * Tiles definition
> file (no comma-delimited list), then the stock 1.1 ActionServlet seems
> to work just as well. This works with the Tiles example application as
> well as my own.
>
> Most of the code in the 1.1 ActionComponentServlet and
> TilesRequestServlet seem to overlap.
>
> Perhaps there's a way we could just use the processor in 1.1 and
> eliminate the servlet subclass?
>
I want to go that way, once the basic integration is done. Ideally, the
standard RequestProcessor can be used, and any one-time initialization can
be done in a PlugIn. But I haven't looked deeply into how
TilesRequestProcessor differs from the standard one yet.
Cedric, any comments?
> -T.
>
Craig
> Cedric Dumoulin wrote:
> >
> > By using tiles ActionComponentServlet , no Struts functionalities are lost. You
> > gain one : the ability to use Tiles definitions names as Struts forward.
> > Note that Struts1.1 also require the TilesRequestProcessor to enable Tiles.
> >
> > Cedric
> >
> > Vincent Stoessel wrote:
> >
> > > Just out of curiosity, what functionality is lost
> > > by using tiles' ActionComponentServlet ?
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Ricardo de Souza Moura wrote:
> > > > Can I use a plugIn to Tiles ?
> > > > I am not wanting to use the ActionComponentServlet, but I am wanting to
> > > > use the definitions-config param.
> > > >
> > > > There are some way ?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
