>------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-07-03 22:10 -------
>Maybe, I should take a look at the patch =:0). What I had in mind wouldn't
>bypass the controller. It would look up the path specified by the
>ActionForward
>and use that for the action="" path. This wouldn't be any different
>that using a
>RTE to do the equivalent of "action='<%= forward.getPath() %>'. So the idea is
>that instead just being able to say "action=${actionMapping.path()}" we'd be
>able to say "forward=${actionForward.name()}". In the latter case,
>the tag would
>use ${actionForward.path} as the target of the form. It's like the difference
>between page= and forward= in the html:link tag, except here its action= and
>forward=.
I think Craig's point is that it's possible to specify a forward
which bypasses the controller. It's also possible, as you note, to
specify a forward which uses the controller. Perhaps the question is
wether the system should be more protective vs. more permissive.
I thought Ted's use cases were pretty spot-on, and I very much like
the flexibility of having a forward attribute to the form tag. But
it would also be easy to mark this bug as "LATER" if the focus for
now should stay on pushing out 1.1b2.
Joe
--
--
* Joe Germuska { [EMAIL PROTECTED] }
"It's pitiful, sometimes, if they've got it bad. Their eyes get
glazed, they go white, their hands tremble.... As I watch them I
often feel that a dope peddler is a gentleman compared with the man
who sells records."
--Sam Goody, 1956
tune in posse radio: <http://www.live365.com/stations/289268>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
