>------- 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]>