I'm trying to call using action forward property in struts 1 from struts-config, and I would like to invoke another action, which it's located in another struts.config file. And obviously it doesn't work!
My code is:
In "struts-misExpedientes.xml"
<action path="/s99bIrInicio" forward="$$$WEBROOT_ENVIRONMENT$$$/comunJSP/s99binicio.do">
the other xml file is "struts-comun.xml"
<action path="/s99binicio" forward="/s99bIrWelcomeMensajeDia.do" />
Notes:
"WEBROOT_ENVIRONMENT" is a variable I have declared in a property file and its value is [http:// localhost:8100/s99bEnvironmentWar]
I thank any idea you could provided.
If you mean that you want to forward from one webapp to another webapp, then this is not possible. Every webapp is isolated from the other webapps. Each has its awn classes, libraries and sessions, different from the other one. So passing HttpRequest objects from one to the other doesn't make sense.
You should probably redirect to the other webapp. BTW, action chaining is discouraged by Struts, even when it's possible, inside a single wepapp.
EDIT: it appears that you're using modules. So do what the documentation says:
There are three approaches for switching from one module to another.
You can use the org.apache.struts.actions.SwitchAction from the Extras JAR,
you can use a <forward> (global or local) and specify the contextRelative attribute with a value of true,
or you can specify the "module" parameter as part of any of the Struts JSP hyperlink tags (Include, Img, Link, Rewrite, or Forward).
Related
I have 3 projects, (Ex. project1, project2, project3). Some parts of these projects are using just 1 Form (frmDetails) placed on a separate folder.
I want to Disable some details on my form depends on what project I open.
For example, I opened Project1 - all details on my form are displayed. Then when I opened project2 - I want "Age" and "Birthday" set Visible to false.
What functions that I need to this?
The easiest way to do that, is to make 3 separate copies of the form for 3 projects and modify them as needed.
If you wish, you could create a class from that form with minimal objects that appear in every project, and create 3 separate forms from that class per project.
Normally, after you build an executable, executable doesn't know from which project it was build. So you can't basically have one form behaving differently per project. However, per project you might add something that tells the project (be it a text, xml, Json, dbf ... file). So you could read that file's content in load or init of form and set form objects' visibility on\off if you want to do it with just a single form. It would make things harder and would be confusing but at the end it might sound 'nice' since it is only a single form. My suggestion, as said on top, create 3 separate copies per project. That way it is much easier to control them.
If you're using an application object, you can have a property of that object that identifies the project. However, I'd be more likely to do this in a more generic way that specifically looking at a single property.
You might use a set of logical properties that indicate options you can turn on and off, and then you can check those properties in your forms.
I've been trying to implement a Front Controller on a VBScript (ASP Classic) based system for a couple of days. I come from a ASP.NET MVC and Java background, where MVC implementations are kind common and mostly done by existing frameworks. On VBScript, however, there's almost nothing done in this area, so it is the reason why I'm trying to do it by myself. I used this and this article as a guide on how to implement it.
I believed at first that I'd need to define some constant parameters for each request, so I created 3:
class_command 'which command responsible to execute the correct class handler
action 'which method of the class handler to execute
action_params 'which parameters the action will need
Next, I defined a generic controller handler for treating the request:
Public Function Controller_Handler(action_params)
Its task is to extract the constant parameters (class_command, action, action_params) and treat any errors (I'll add later a filter to process it) that might come like absence of the constant parameters or authentication problems.
But soon I realized a problem: how will the handler know which command to call, since the request is a string? I can't simply converting it to class using reflection, because VBScript (I think) doesn't have a reflection library or built-in feature.
So I thought I could create a Switch Case like this:
Select action_Params.Item("action_params")
Case "command_A"
' Call Command A
Case "command_B"
' Call Command_B
.
.
.
Case "Command_X"
' And so on
End Select
But that would kinda procedural way to do it. Next I thought of creating a XML file which would map all the commands and other stuff.
So my question is: is this a good way of implementing a Front Controlller pattern, considering VBScript limitations? If not, could you provide a guidance (hopefully with some example, even a simple one) on how can I do it?
Moving from classic to .net/mvc I can share what I did in classic asp to try to emulate this behavior as closely as possible without making it too much of a maintenance issue.
Using URL Rewrite in IIS are my routes. I usually just make one route and direct/rewrite all inbound requests to one controller.asp page to simplify things and not have a bunch of rules and controller redirects directly in my URL Rewrite settings for maintaining it easier (for me).
Using Request.ServerVariables("HTTP_X-ORIGINAL-URL") in controllers.asp you can grab the actual URL that was entered, which return something like.. /real/url
In controllers.asp programatically call the view based on the entered url using Server.Execute("view1.asp")
I have one class file called routes.asp that is included in each model/class file, and helps me gather the URL properties oRoute.GetPath_FirstDirectory() and so on. The model/class file then uses this data to create its property values that can be consumed by the view. Using CLASS_INITIALIZE in each model/class to populate itself from the route/url, or it could also be done directly in the view.
In the respective view I include my class/model file (if even needed) using <!--#include file="class.asp"--> then simply open Set Model = new cModelClass to initialize and start using it in the view. I don't include the class in the controllers.asp because the view will not inherit any of the variables from controllers.asp when using Server.Execute() to the view. So I include it directly in the view.
Error handling can be at multiple levels here, but ideally its in the controllers.asp. Specific error handling is usually at the actual model/class CLASS_INITIALIZE to avoid redundant use of the class in the controller, since it's already going to be initialized in the view.
Now this is not exactly what goes in in .Net mvc, but it's the best way I've come up with, and easiest to maintain for me. Maybe others have other implementations, but this is mine and solely based on my experience. And so far, it's been working out pretty well.
I'm wondering if there is a way to declare routes in MVC3 so that the route "zone1/{controller}/{action}" would direct to {controller}.zone1{action} method and "zone2/{controller}/{action}" would direct to {controller}.zone2{action} method, for example. So that's basically transforming the target action name based on the route.
Thanks
Check out The Attribute Routing project. You can specify on your methods the routes which I feel is a bit easier to read. Here's a decent blurb on it:
http://gregorsuttie.com/2012/01/12/attributerouting-for-mvc/
You could also write your own custom route handler but I don't believe you can do what you want without some custom code. I could be wrong here though. The attribute routing project should work just fine for what you want however.
I know how to import classes and libraries, if I have header.jsp and I want to include it within my index.jsp... I've been looking into the #page annotation but am having trouble finding a list of parameters.
Is this the wrong approach altogether? If I'm going to be setting up header and footer files should I use a completely different method?
You can include a jsp page in another either statically or dynamically. Each has its own syntax and usage recommendation. In your case, I believe static include is what is needed.
As I understand it, Struts2 action class instances can (unlike Struts1) be stateful, because each GET or POST to an action creates a new instance of the backing action class.
I also see that there's a standard(?) idiom (Pattern?) to provide input forms: the same .jsp is used as the View component of two different actions, like this:
<action name="showForm" class="defaultActionThatDoesNothingExceptReturnSuccess">
<result name="success">inputForm.jsp</result>
</action>
<action name="validateAndProcessForm" class="realAction">
<result name="input">inputForm.jsp</result>
<result name="success">formProcessed.jsp</result>
</action>
The first action just displays the form, without validating the input or processing it. The form in the .jsp posts to the second action:
<s:form action="validateAndProcessForm" method="post">
and that second action validates the posted fields/parameters, returning "input" if the form's inputs are incomplete or invalid, or actually calling the action class's execute if the inputs are complete and valid, thus processing the form and returning the (e.g.) formProcessed.jsp that displays something like "thanks for your input!".
So we have this sort of "picket fence" idiom:
defaultAction- -> realAction-
| | | |
-> input.jsp- <--- -> success.jsp
This is done so that the first time input.jsp is displayed, validations aren't called (and so validation errors are not shown), but that after the submit button on that jsp is clicked, the "real" action will validate the input, possibly passing back errors calling out invalid input which the input.jsp will display.
Which brings us back to stateful, non-singleton actions; because the action is stateful and thus not shared across GETs or POSTs, and each instance is instantiated just for that GET or POST, the action has no way to know if a particular session has "GETted" the same page multiple times. So GETting showForm.action will never validate, and GETing validateAndProcessForm will always validate (and show errors if the parameters are invalid), even if that GET is the first time a particular session has "GETted" that URL.
Which is why we need the "fence post": the first action just to display the form, the second to capture the input.
Is my understanding correct? Is there a less verbose way to do this, to not validate input on the initial GET, but to validate on the POST, without having to have two actions for every form?
There is another way to perform what you want without the picket fence. The validation interceptor, by default, does not fire for the input method. You can therefore update your struts.xml to the following:
<action name="*MyForm" method="{1}" class="realAction">
<result name="input">inputForm.jsp</result>
<result name="success">formProcessed.jsp</result>
</action>
With this setup, you do not need the empty action at all. When you first go to the form, you would go to the url "inputMyForm", and have your form action just point to "MyForm". The {1} in the method block just means that the framework will call whatever method matches the * from the action name. If the * match is empty, it defaults to the execute method. So you get the following kinds of actions:
inputMyForm would go to the input() method of your action class
MyForm would go to the execute() method of your action class
executeMyForm would go to the execute() method of your action class
customMethodNameMyForm would go to the customMethodName() method of your action class
Since the validator interceptor excludes any actions going to the input method, you can set up whatever validation you want for this action, and it will only look for it when you submit the form. Since every time you submit the form, it is going to the execute method, the validation will occur every time you submit the form.
Also, if you are extending the ActionSupport class, that class already defines the input() method, so you would not even need to change your action class to accomplish this.
It's possible to do things differently but lets say you let struts2 handle all the requests. Everything that struts2 handles is an "action".
Don't worry about GET or POST they are just two different methods of sending data to an action, if there are parameters (regardless if they are get or set) then struts2 will try to place that data onto the actions class (assuming there is one). If there is a validation method (or a properly named validation xml file) then validation will be run after the class properties are set. Then the execute() method for the class is called (assuming there is a class). After this a jsp is typically rendered which has at its disposal all the public data in the action's method.
Take your "showForm" action... you can reduce the xml to:
<action name="showForm">
<result>inputForm.jsp</result>
</action>
You can see you don't need to define a class. Further the default result is success so we don't need to mention that either.
So when thinking of hmtl we would think in terms of pages. When thinking in struts we think in terms of actions, they only need to be as complicated as necessary. That is if you need to show a form then you need a show form action, if you want a display page that uses the form data then you need a "displayPage" action which does something with the form data.
So think of each action as starting with a url > ----------- > ending with returning date (generally rendering a jsp). The dashes are the optional parts that you may define, but if you don't they will sensibly default for you. To see what features are provided to you you'll need to look in struts2-core-x.x.x.x.jar and view the contents of the struts-default.xml that is where "defaultStack" is defined. Each interceptor in turn is called, knowing what they offer (and the other interceptors offer) let you know what you get out of the box (I wouldn't look into them too deeply just know they are there so you'll know for instance that if you need to upload a file the simple fact that the "fileUpload" intercepter is in the default stack should be indication enough that there must be built in file uploading capabilities.
So no there is not a "false action" to the input form. It is a real action abet a simple one. After you learn how to define packages, actions, default actions for a package and perhaps globally and learn how to define an interceptor then you should look at the conventions plug in. It makes life a lot easier!
Your question makes sense. Your pattern is correct, though:
as Quaternion pointed out, there is little or no "verbosity". Your first "showForm" is a dummy "action mapping", its "do nothing" class does not need a particular class definition (the default ActionSupport is enough).
there are other possible patterns; some people might prefer the idiom you are pointing out (and it has a long history - I remember doing some pelr CGI pages in that way, centuries ago) : use a single url (and hence a single action mapping) for the two "steps" (show the initial form and process the form), by guessing inside the action method (or in the validator) the current step, perhaps by checking that some parameter is present (perhaps a hidden field) or perhaps by discriminating POST/GET. In Struts2, I prefer the other way, in general.
BTW, calling the Struts2 actions "stateful" is correct only if you undestand (you do, apparently) that that 'state' does not survive among requests.