-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 So what I'm gathering from this is:
1. Defaulting friendly URLs from a user perspective is a plus but has a drawback of current implementation in both a hivemodule and web xml. 2. Changing the servlet to a servlet filter is/may be a plus. The caveat here would be a) not backward compatible and b) different handling for portlets - which may or may not be an issue (meaning 1 filter to handle both vs. 1 filter for non-portlet, 1 for portlet) 3. Somewhat off-topic, the need for multiple types of links is not clear. (ideally, I'd like to see a single @Link and have Tapestry figure out what kind it needs to be by parameters, URL, or other identifying marker. Are there any issues raised from this that I missed? Brian Howard Lewis Ship wrote: > The tricky part is that if you use friendly URLs, you have to > coordinate the hivemodule.xml configuration with the web.xml > configuration. > > I frequently define new engine services, and new friendly URL schemes > to go with them. > > > On 4/10/06, Brian K. Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been looking at the 'normal' use case and it appears as though > Friendly URLs seem to be the 'preferred' method of displaying URLs. This > being the case, would it not make more sense for Friendly URLs to be the > 'default' for Tapestry? I am not proposing the removal of the ability to > customize the way they are generated, only the default. > > In proposing this, however, I'm not proposing "true/false" for their > enablement. Currently, when enabling Friendly URLs, the 'ugly' URLs are > still available. I'd suggest three options: > > enabled, relaxed, and disabled. > > "enabled" (not backward compatible) would completely disable the ability > to access the page/resources through the 'ugly' (original Tapestry) URL. > In using ACEGI for path security, it's quite disturbing to get security > enabled only to find access is open through the 'un-friendly' URL. > > "relaxed" (backward compatible) would present Friendly URLs by default, > but 'ugly' URLs would still be accessible > > "disabled" (backward compatible) would present the original Tapestry > URLs as it is now without the Friendly URLs. > > I'm still all for customization of the exact nature of the > 'friendliness' (the current method of stating 'html' == page, 'direct' > == direct, 'sdirect' == secure direct) such that users can specify what > endings they want. I'm also searching for a message on the user list > from quite a while ago that takes friendly URLs a step farther, but > that's kind of outside the realm of this. > > Thoughts on this? (I don't see any value add for 'ugly' URLs, and if > Friendly URLs were popular enough - and I must say they are to me with > security external to Tapestry classes - can we not make it just a little > easier to 'default' them?) > > Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEPO9LaCoPKRow/gARAiLyAJwJZz5W6mV0x7ecCwjB0ncuVap4egCg0CBT 6RBmRieHFOajMpJFywY6wU4= =mJMm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
