struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martin Gilday" <martin.li...@imap.cc>
Subject Re: [S2] Plugins gone wild!
Date Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:14:12 GMT
I think I would agree actually.  I'm not sure about the performance
implications.  I had only planned on preventing the parameters
interceptor setting to them, so it wouldn't be on every field access.


----- Original message -----
From: "Chris Pratt" <thechrispratt@gmail.com>
To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:06:07 -0700
Subject: Re: [S2] Plugins gone wild!

> My initial
> idea was another flag on the parameter interceptor which, when enabled,
> would only set against the action when an annotation is present on the
> setter.  It might make more sense for this feature/annotation to be part
> of the annotations plugin.  Does anyone else see this as a useful
> feautre?  I'd rather annotate what I want to permit to be set than
> exclude my DAO/Services (which are required by the Spring plugin).

Actually, I'd turn it around a bit.  I'd rather annotate when
something should be hidden from Struts then to have to add an
annotation to every mutator in the system.

And, I'm actually don't know so this is a question, not a criticism,
but would checking those annotations on every field access slow down
the system?
  (*Chris*)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org


Mime
View raw message