jsp include problem

[Alex Kravets]

Hi,
I have a directory (main) in which I have a page genericPage.jsp. Also, I have subdirectories (sub) in main directory that I want to include in genericPage.jsp using

<jsp:include page="">

page directive. The problem is that when I include html file from sub in main my images do not show up. In sub I have images coded as

<img src="img.gif">

so when I include sub page in main, page is looking for images in main (since it's coded like that) and not in sub, if I code image as [code]<img src="../sub/img.gif"> and include it in main, I am not in main directory anymore. Absolute URL does not seem to work in jsp:include. What's the solution?
thanks,
Alex

[Billybob Marshall]

links such as <img> are relative to the client's perspective, not necessarily to the referencing page's perspective. It looks like you are perhaps using inclusions in an ill-conceived way.

[Alex Kravets]

I guess the only solution is to code images with absolute URL. Does not work in all cases for me though, since sub dir will sometimes be first in main2 and then in main. When it's moved to main, main2 is deleted.

[Bear Bibeault]

Yes, when image (and other resource references) are resolved by the browser, it uses the URL of the request (not where a file was loaded from) as the base.
So your images either need to use a server-relative URL, or your page can establish a new base via the <base> tag.

[danny liu]

you should put all images in one folder, e.g., webapps\application1\images
Every time you wanna use an image, just insert the following line:
<img src="/images/xxx.jpg">
In that way, the corresponding image can always be accessed.

[Bear Bibeault]

I don't see how using a single folder makes any difference. Once you've resigned yourself to using server-relative HREF's or the base tag, it's moot how you organize the images.

[danny liu]

Using one folder to hold all images really make a big difference. It is easier to maintain.
For image upgrade, I just replace the images in the /images with the new ones. I don't need to go through each sub folder and replace these images
one by one.

[Bear Bibeault]

If that's easier for you, that's fine. For a complex web application with potentially hundreds of images, it's usually easier to keep them organized in a hierarchy.
My point was, that the choice of how to store the images (single folder or otherwise) is completely moot with regards to the issue of the topic.