Ok, maybe like this...
<form action="Foo">
<input type="hidden" name="action"
value="/Foo/Foo.doFoo">
<input type="submit" name="submitbutton"
value="Submit Foo">
</form>
<form action="Foo">
<input type="hidden" name="action"
value="/Foo/Foo.doFooBar">
<input type="submit" name="submitbutton"
value="Submit Foo bar">
</form>
Or with javascript or query strings things get even
easier. Am I missing something?
All of this presumes there is only to be one action to
be performed at a time. Are you saying you wanted to
be able to perform two actions in the same class?
Not trying to be picky, just trying to understand the
approach a little better.
-Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 3:13 PM
To: Turbine-user
Subject: Re: Changing Action Interface
on 6/6/01 2:22 PM, "Peter Lynch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hey there,
>>
>> I'm curious. Why were actions and action events
were
>> decided to be two different parameters? It seems a
>> simpler approach would have been to have one
parameter
>> named "action" with a possible value of
>
>> <action classpath>/<action classname>.<action
method
>> name>
>
>> This seems simpler. Also the current convention may
>> force you to name your action class methods like
>>
>> doLongmethodname as opposed to
>
>> doLongMethodName
>>
>> The second being more of a standard method naming
>> scheme.
>How do you handle this case:
><form action="Foo">
><input type="submit" name="eventSubmit_doFoo">
><input type="submit" name="eventSubmit_doFooBar">
></form>
>-jon
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
