Sorry for my late reply, but I was busy doing other things.
I just investigated a little further into this issue, but still cannot find a
way to resolve it.
As you proposed, I checked my struts filter mapping, which is /* , so that
would be sufficient.
I also checked the struts.action.extension-property in struts.properties, which
I commented out, so this defaults to "action" and "" in
org.apache.struts2.dispatcher.mapper.DefaultActionMapper.
But in this class there seems to be the error: In revision 615679 a change was
made to
org.apache.struts2.dispatcher.mapper.DefaultActionMapper.dropExtension(String,
ActionMapping) , which was supposed to add some special handling for urls like
/foo/bar-1.0/description . Anyway, this handling seems to breaks URLs like
"foo.htm".
So, to sum it up, am I missing anything which I need to do to make my stuff
work? If not, I'll subclass the DefaultActionMapper and override the mentioned
method, but I don't think thats the way it's supposed to be.
Regards,
Philipp
Am 21.01.2010 um 20:47 schrieb Brian Thompson:
> In web.xml, make a Struts filter mapping that includes *.html in addition to
> *.action.
>
> -Brian
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Philipp Leusmann <
> philipp.leusm...@rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> that would work, but then I'll have to make a call to
>> "/staticHTML/page.html.action" to access "/staticHTML/page.html".
>> Would be a workaround, but I still would prefer the call to *.html
>>
>> Philipp
>>
>> Am 21.01.2010 um 19:18 schrieb Brian Thompson:
>>
>>> Can you get the Struts filter to execute for static pages? It seems like
>>> that would fix the Dispatcher.getInstance() problem. Something like
>>>
>>> <action name="*" class="com.opensymphony.xwork2.ActionSupport">
>>> <result name="success">/staticHTML/{1}</result>
>>> </action>
>>>
>>> in your struts.xml seems like it would do the trick (be careful of
>>> overriding your regular actions!).
>>>
>>> -Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Philipp Leusmann <
>>> philipp.leusm...@rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sure it would be faster without that stuff, but since I use some
>>>> session-related stuff (user login status etc.) , replacing it with a
>> static
>>>> decorator would not be feasible.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks anyway for your suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Philipp
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
