Another alternative is to have each frame navigate through a Struts action
instead of directly to a JSP. This is what I do - *everything* goes through
a Struts action, all JSP's live under WEB-INF.
Erik
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laine Donlan (DEV)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: [Struts-Dev] Multi-App support and frames / iframes
> I have been experimenting with the multi application support in the latest
> nightly builds, and it is real nice - a much needed feature, thanks. I
had
> a question about how to handle applications and sub applications that make
a
> lot of use of frames or iframes. I am pretty sure that this relates only
to
> message resources, but I guess it might also apply to the <struts> tag as
> well.
>
> Basically the problem I was seeing that when an action was processed and
the
> subsequent view contains multiple frames - when those JSPs were requested
> and processed the message resources are no longer mapped to the proper sub
> application. This is due to the fact that in lines 1170 - 1178 of the
> RequestUtils:
>
> // Expose the resources for this sub-application
> ApplicationConfig config = (ApplicationConfig)
> context.getAttribute(Action.APPLICATION_KEY + prefix);
> if (config != null)
> request.setAttribute(Action.APPLICATION_KEY, config);
> MessageResources resources = (MessageResources)
> context.getAttribute(Action.MESSAGES_KEY + prefix);
> if (resources != null)
> request.setAttribute(Action.MESSAGES_KEY, resources);
>
> The app config and resources are stored in the request (which is not
> available to the jsps residing in the frames). There are two possible
> solutions that I can see, allow each sub application to determine how it
> should be stored - request, session, etc, but I think has more downstream
> affects on how actions are processed. The other solution would be to
> provide a way to map a JSP request through the sub application via a
forward
> action. An easy modification to the ForwardAction to use a request
> parameter (forward.uri) if no 'parameter' is defined in the mapping, would
> allow JSP requests to be mapped through an action and therefore be
> configured properly.
>
> I think both solutions have upsides and downsides. Would be interested in
> comments from the group. I have code to handle both that I can submit
> depending on which way is preferred.
>
> Thanks
>
> Laine
>
> --
> 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]>
