Wes Wannemacher wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 03 March 2009 14:31:36 Greg Lindholm wrote:
>> Is this what you mean?
>>
>> <filter-mapping>
>> <filter-name>struts2</filter-name>
>> <url-pattern>*.action</url-pattern>
>> </filter-mapping>
>>
>> I previously had it as <url-pattern>/*</url-pattern> based on all the
>> books
>> and examples I was able to find. So is there no reason to include
>> everything in the filter?
>>
>
> I would also map /struts/*
>
> I noticed today as well that struts was picking up an action I had
> defined,
> even though I had no .action. I think I had seen it before intermittently,
> but
> wasn't able to nail it down. Truthfully, I've been using conventions so
> long
> that it strike me as odd at first. It was only because I was explicitly
> trying
> to take it out of the equation for something I was working on that I
> noticed.
>
> -Wes
>
> --
>
> Wes Wannemacher
> Author - Struts 2 In Practice
> Includes coverage of Struts 2.1, Spring, JPA, JQuery, Sitemesh and more
> http://www.manning.com/wannemacher
>
>
Why do you recommend mapping '/struts/*' to the struts filter? What uses
this convention?
Clearly there has been a change in behavior between 2.0.11 and 2.1.6, I'm
wondering if this was intentional? Does the FilterDispatcher now assume
that ever request it sees must be an action? If so this kind of feels wrong
for a Filter, I expect filters to handle what they need to and pass
everything else through to the next layer.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Getting-Servlets-and-Struts-2.1.6-to-work-together--tp22315139p22330799.html
Sent from the Struts - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
