struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Pratt <thechrispr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Annotation Support for bypassing prepare
Date Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:25:46 GMT
Why not just take your action and move the Preparable interface and
prepare() function to a subclass with the methods that require it's
support?  Seems a lot easier than creating more infrastructure.
  (*Chris*)


On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:

> Okay, i can create one for mine, leaving to struts2 framework developer
> whether strust2 need an annotation like @SkipPrepare. Thanks for your
> support Dave.
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> Srikanth
> Software Developer
> --------------------------------
> eGovernments Foundations
> www.egovernments.org
> Mob : 9980078913
> --------------------------------
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Dave Newton <davelnewton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Technically it already *is* part of S2 in the MethodFilterInterceptor
> > class.
> >
> > I'm not particularly excited about an annotation to skip Prepareable, but
> > I'm not fundamentally opposed, either.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
> > sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
> >
> > > The idea is precisely good, thats what i wanted but do you think it
> will
> > be
> > > a good addition to strust2 framework by any chance then i hope the same
> > > could be a part of struts2 framework itself.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks & Regards
> > > Srikanth
> > > Software Developer
> > > --------------------------------
> > > eGovernments Foundations
> > > www.egovernments.org
> > > Mob : 9980078913
> > > --------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Dave Newton <davelnewton@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you'll note in the docs the interceptor extends
> > > MethodFilterInterceptor,
> > > > so one trivial way to fix it is to configure the interceptor for the
> > > > specific actions.
> > > >
> > > > Another option is to take the existing interceptor and extend it to
> > > support
> > > > something like annotations, a naming convention, etc. to skip either
> > > > specific or general methods.
> > > >
> > > > E.g., if your validation call was always named the same thing, you
> > could
> > > > either configure the interceptor package-wide, or change the prepare
> > > > interceptor to always skip preparation for methods annotated with
> > > > @DoNotPrepare, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
> > > > sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Too many methods :( needs its own prepare then.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks & Regards
> > > > > Srikanth
> > > > > Software Developer
> > > > > --------------------------------
> > > > > eGovernments Foundations
> > > > > www.egovernments.org
> > > > > Mob : 9980078913
> > > > > --------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Dave Newton <
> davelnewton@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Did you try `prepareWhateverMethodThatNeedsPrepare`? I don't
> recall
> > > if
> > > > > that
> > > > > > works or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
> > > > > > sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > No i can't do that, because that Action contains other
method
> > which
> > > > > needs
> > > > > > > Prepare, the only option i can think of is moving these
Ajax
> > method
> > > > to
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > other Action which is not extending Prepareable. But as
of now
> > its
> > > > very
> > > > > > > hard because so many resources i have to change. Any other
> idea?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Thanks & Regards
> > > > > > > Srikanth
> > > > > > > Software Developer
> > > > > > > --------------------------------
> > > > > > > eGovernments Foundations
> > > > > > > www.egovernments.org
> > > > > > > Mob : 9980078913
> > > > > > > --------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Paul Benedict <
> > > pbenedict@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Have you thought of removing the "implements Preparable"
from
> > > your
> > > > > > > action?
> > > > > > > > That will do it.
> > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2013 6:12 AM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
> > > > > > > > sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Suppose i need to call any ajax validation on
the same
> > Action,
> > > it
> > > > > > > > > unnecessarily run in to prepare. Where that ajax
validation
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > required to call prepare.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards
> > > > > > > > > Srikanth
> > > > > > > > > Software Developer
> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > eGovernments Foundations
> > > > > > > > > www.egovernments.org
> > > > > > > > > Mob : 9980078913
> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Paul Benedict
<
> > > > > pbenedict@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Why would you want to bypass it?
> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2013 3:47 AM, "Sreekanth S. Nair"
<
> > > > > > > > > > sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Is there any annotation available to
bypass prepare
> > method
> > > > > while
> > > > > > > > > invoking
> > > > > > > > > > > certain methods, just like @skipvalidation
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > Srikanth
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > e: davelnewton@gmail.com
> > > > > > m: 908-380-8699
> > > > > > s: davelnewton_skype
> > > > > > t: @dave_newton <https://twitter.com/dave_newton>
> > > > > > b: Bucky Bits <http://buckybits.blogspot.com/>
> > > > > > g: davelnewton <https://github.com/davelnewton>
> > > > > > so: Dave Newton <
> http://stackoverflow.com/users/438992/dave-newton
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > e: davelnewton@gmail.com
> > > > m: 908-380-8699
> > > > s: davelnewton_skype
> > > > t: @dave_newton <https://twitter.com/dave_newton>
> > > > b: Bucky Bits <http://buckybits.blogspot.com/>
> > > > g: davelnewton <https://github.com/davelnewton>
> > > > so: Dave Newton <http://stackoverflow.com/users/438992/dave-newton>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > e: davelnewton@gmail.com
> > m: 908-380-8699
> > s: davelnewton_skype
> > t: @dave_newton <https://twitter.com/dave_newton>
> > b: Bucky Bits <http://buckybits.blogspot.com/>
> > g: davelnewton <https://github.com/davelnewton>
> > so: Dave Newton <http://stackoverflow.com/users/438992/dave-newton>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message