Don't use LookupDispatchAction. That is an obsolete solution. Check the archives on options. Don't pay attention to the nasty talk in the archives, just go check out the solutions.
On 4/7/06, Quinn Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK. I contemplated creating a base class, but didn't like the idea of > having to > create a basically empty Action class for Actions that use ActionForward > to > forward to a jsp for display without calling an Action. And, frankly, > thought it > would be more complex to go learn the order of method calls of > LookupDispatchAction to figure out what to override and when and how I > return > without bypassing some necessary processing. Sometimes I like the easy way > out > (as long as it's not crappy). > > Q > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:24 PM > To: Struts Users Mailing List > Subject: Re: Servlet Filter? > > > Hi Quinn, > > Quinn Stone wrote: > > 1. Does the Servlet filter seem a good solution? > > Yes, but not quite as described, and ironically its because of the > answer to #2 :) > > > 2. If I throw an EnrollmentDingBat exception from said Servlet Filter, > will a > > handler defined in <global-exceptions> catch it? My suspicion is that > the > filter > > might executing too early, before struts mechanics cut in. > > No, it won't. As you suspect, the filter fires before Struts gets > involved. > > However, what you *can* do, is simply forward somewhere from the filter. > It could be straight to a JSP, or it could be to an Action mapping, > whatever is appropriate. > > I think using a filter is generally a decent idea, but one thing to > consider: what are you going to map it to? It sounds like you have many > possible URLs that you would need to check, hence the reason for wanting > some "central" checkpoint in the first place. The problem is, the > filter is of course going to fire for *any* mapped request > indiscriminately. While filters, unless poorly written, tend to not add > a horrible amount of overhead, you may not want to add any at all where > it isn't necessary. So, onto #3... > > > No, three questions: > > > > 3. Any better ideas? > > I would probably do it instead with a custom Action base class that your > other Actions extend from. Then, only extend from it those Actions > where this check is needed. I mean, if you determine its needed for all > of them, or nearly all of them, then I'd probably go with the filter. > If you can narrow it down to just a handful though, the custom base > Action might be a better answer. > > > Q > > HTH, > Frank > > -- > Frank W. Zammetti > Founder and Chief Software Architect > Omnytex Technologies > http://www.omnytex.com > AIM: fzammetti > Yahoo: fzammetti > MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Java Web Parts - > http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net > Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it! > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
