"Steve Raeburn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-07-23 > > 16:28 ------- > > Frankly, I think requiring this goes too far. Suggesting best > > practices for > > real applications is one thing, but generating unexpected > > exceptions for simple > > example applications makes this harder to use. > > > > Note that I have no problem requiring use of the controller in > > order for modules > > to work. Most applications don't use modules, including the exercise > > application, which now doesn't work. > > > > I entirely agree this comment. Directly accessing JSPs has been permitted up > until 1.1 and most of the included webapps work this way. I think if we are > going to require that *all* requests go through the controller that's a > bigger functional change than a 1.1 - 1.2 upgrade should contain. > > I don't see that it should be necessary to require that restriction for > modules to work properly.
What is the point of having a front controller if you then have to have code all over the place that checks to see if it was invoked, and if not, do its job for it? This issue is much bigger than just getting taglibs and modules to work together. The implication is that tags should continue to work correctly in the absence of *any* per-request processing the controller does. Think about that for a minute. You'll also bypass the Tiles request processor, and then expect Tiles to work correctly in your JSP pages. Who knows what else? > Any directly accessed JSP would be assumed to be > part of the default module and the message resources obtained accordingly. > If you try to access a JSP directly *and* expect it to work as part of a > module *then* you deserve all that's coming to you ;-) The problem is that this behaviour will cause even *more* confusion when people try to use modules. We specifically tell people that their existing apps should "just work" when dropped in as a non-default module. But if they are accessing JSP pages without going through the controller, they will suddenly find that the wrong message resources are being picked up. Wouldn't it be better for them to see an error message, rather than having to figure out what happened by themselves? -- Martin Cooper > > I don't claim to have any great knowledge of the internal workings of > modules (yet) which is why I was tentative in posting a patch rather than > committing a fix because I thought there might be a better way to solve the > problem. I will to investigate further to see if that's the case. > > In the meantime, I will commit the patch later today and, yes, we should be > looking at updating the webapps :-0 > > Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
