On 8/10/07, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- yitzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/9/07, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- yitzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I had > > > > <s:form action="CertificateImport" method="POST" > > > > enctype="multipart/form-data" > > > > > and tried with > > > > <form action="CertificateImport.action" > > > > method="POST" > > > > enctype="multipart/form-data" > > > > > When I tried > > > > <html:form ... > I got > > > > No tag "form" defined in tag library imported > > with > > > > prefix "html" > > > > even though I have > > > > <%@ taglib prefix="html" tagdir="/WEB-INF/tags" > > %> > > > > > > I can't imagine that mixing S1 tags into an S2 app > > > would work particularly well. Perhaps > extrapolating > > > from the response as using the enctype in the S2 > > > form tag would be a better idea. > > Ah... would you mind repeating that in more words? > > I personally cannot begin to imagine that the proposed > solution consisting of the intermixing of custom tags > from the Struts 1 web application framework within > your existing Struts 2 application would lead to > anything resembling success. Instead I would consider > taking the audacious step of applying common sense to > the problem and recognize that the original answer to > your question assumed (incorrectly) the existence of a > Struts 1 app thereby misrepresenting a potential > solution to your original question. However, the > general idea of the (again, incorrect) answer is also > applicable to your current application environment, > namely, Struts 2. The application of the spirit of the > original answer may lead you to a potential solution > (although I hasten to add that you did indeed find the > solution regardless of the initially-proposed (albeit > lacking) solution and my verbosity-lacking response > which, apparently, instead of being taken as the > "um... don't just read the answer, think about it" > reminder as was intended, was instead used as a poor > launchpad for an ill-conceived attempt at poking fun > of what was a fairly concise interpretation of my > feelings at the time. > > d.
My response was in no way an attempt to poke fun at you. Due to the concise nature of your response, I had trouble understanding exactly what you meant. While brevity is often a good thing, brevity to the point of ambiguity can be counter productive. My response was simply a request for a more verbose version of your reply, so that I would better be able to apply your suggestion. PS After reviewing your original post and the subsequent post, I think I understand what you were trying to say in the first post. If you look at the post of mine to which you replied, you will find that I already had the enctype which you suggested I add. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
