Why not use two different put (or add) statements with a 'role=""' attribute? One for a role logged in, one for all other roles (might need blank quotes "" to make that work). If course, if you're not using container based authentication (JAAS), this probably won't work for you.
Does that fit your architecture? If not I have other ideas such as overriding a tiles derived requestProcessor method to have it manipulate the tile attributes directly by overriding any/all attributes/settings. Regards, David -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 6:30 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: Struts/tiles: Run-time definition of which tile to include On 31/5/04 2:52, "Michael McGrady" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why don't you just use an > ActionForward to go to the tiles definition in tiles-defs.xml you > want? Maybe I didn't explain myself well. The point is that I don't want to have one set of tile definitions for when they're logged in, and another set for when logged out. I want a single set of definitions, with the status tile putting up appropriate content depending on whether they're logged in or not. One way would be to have a status tile that does conditional logic, as I showed in my snippet. But I thought there ought to be a simple way to do away with the conditional page and do the whole thing in the definitions file: In my definition file, I want to say "insert tile A or tile B depending on the value of bean X" Husted's book, and the Wrox one, are pretty poor on their coverage of tiles, IMO. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
