Re: (forw) Re: [Webwork-user] Mozilla

[Rickard <ri...@jb...>]

Hey

"Maurice C . Parker" wrote:
> > I was thinking something like:
> > Foo.action -> text/html as type
> > Foo.wml.action -> text/wml as type
> > Foo.plain.action -> text/plain as type
> > etc.
> >
> > Does this seem reasonable? It is a bit more computation to do on each
> > call though (check extensions), but at least it is "future compliant" so
> > WebWork can support multiple output MIME-types.
> >
> This is good thinking.  So would it use the same actions?  It would be real cool to be able to run in different modes or skins using the same actions and you would just have different views selected from views.properties.

Note that you can get skins with just one views.properties. See the
HelloWorld example that is in WebWork. The names in views.properties
*are relative*, so if you do:
/myapp/fancy/MyAction.action
and views.properties contains
MyAction.result=myaction.jsp
Then you will get
/myapp/fancy/myaction.jsp
as result. However, if you instead do:
/myapp/simple/MyAction.action
then you will see
/myapp/simply/myaction.jsp
without having to change anything in views.properties. See the
HelloWorld example for more details.

> If this is the case, it might be clearer to put the new extension on the end of the action instead of right after the class name.

Well, the dispatcher is invoked based on the extension, so it needs to
be ".action". What we put before that is up to us though, hence the
above scheme.

/Rickard

-- 
Rickard Öberg

Email: ri...@jb...