True - but what about tools ;-) They don't mind writing a little extra :-)
I have to admit I tend to use this format myself. I suppose the primary reason I do is that if I ever need to change things (forward-looking) so that the action actually does something, I can just change the class. Of course, for *many* pages, that simple isn't likely to ever happen - and your point is very valid :-) Plus, if I do wind up refactoring, I probably wind up poking in local forwards ... so ... <shuts-up/> I think another reason I personally tend toward writing in that format is that it's more consistent with how the others are done. I'll try to get a fix in this evening. Ted Husted wrote: >No, but here's a related practices question: > >An ActionMapping has a forward property too. If the resource in question is within >the same module, is >ActionMapping.forward "better" than using the ForwardAcion. (It's definatley less to >write!) > >-T. > -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
