I could be wrong ( and I hope I am ), but I thought the request object in
that case was just a map facade to the underlying request attributes map.
Which is why I supposed you say #request['foo'] vs.
#request.getAttribute('foo').
Same goes for session. ( #session['foo'] vs #session.getAttribute('foo') )
I just checked Dispatcher and it seems that #request and #session are
instances of RequestMap and SessionMap respectively, in which a Map wraps
the access to getAttribute.
If these were extended to have a getRequest/getSession method, then we might
be able to say
#request.request.contextPath.
DNewfield wrote:
>
> cilquirm wrote:
>> you could do this
>>
>> <c:set var="req" value="${pageContext.request}"/>
>>
>> <s:property value="\%{ attr['req'].contextPath }"/>
>>
>> <s:property value="\%{ attr['req'].pathInfo }"/>
>
> Isn't the request on the valuestack?
> <s:property value="%{#request.contextPath}"/> should be all you need...
>
> http://wiki.opensymphony.com/display/OGNL/OGNL+Basics
>
> -Dale
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/S2%3A-EL-in-tags-2.0.11-tf4712519.html#a13474669
Sent from the Struts - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
