struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andreas Joseph Krogh <andr...@officenet.no>
Subject Re: WW-2394 really implemented?
Date Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:01:43 GMT
On Sunday 26 April 2009 10:57:59 pm Wes Wannemacher wrote:
> On Sunday 26 April 2009 04:53:23 pm Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> > On Sunday 26 April 2009 10:48:33 pm Wes Wannemacher wrote:
> > > On Sunday 26 April 2009 04:43:42 pm Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 26 April 2009 10:32:43 pm Wes Wannemacher wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 26 April 2009 04:27:28 pm Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday 26 April 2009 10:10:29 pm Musachy Barroso wrote:
> > > > > > > But you always map a url to a method, an action is not
executed,
> > > > > > > a method is. Even if you don't specify a method, "execute"
will
> > > > > > > be used by default.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I like the methods to be a parameter (&method:next=true
for calling
> > > > > > MyAction.nex() for example) not part of the URI itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm... that sounds sort of dangerous to me :), but if it is
> > > > > functionality you would like, feel free to create a patch. Just make
> > > > > sure that it is behavior you can only activate by setting a
> > > > > configuration parameter.
> > > >
> > > > This is no different from what you can do today, only you need to map
> > > > your actions in struts.xml or accept the convention-name for your
> > > > action (MyAction => action name="my"). Wouldn't applying the annotation
> > > > to the class be enough, why introduce another config-param to active?
> > > > It's not like I'm proposing introducing something which isn't possible
> > > > today and impose some kind of security-risk.
> > >
> > > The only part I was talking about was calling a method pointed to by a
> > > request param. As Musachy pointed out, the DynamicMethodInvocation is
> > > already available as a config param.
> >
> > From your wording it sounded like it was something you wanted the user to
> > explicitly enable, which didn't make much snece to me as invoking a method
> > on the action by specifying "&method:myMethodName=true" on the request
> > already works and is enabled by default today.
> 
> Sorry, you're right, it looks like it is enabled by default. I thought for a 
> time we had it turned off by default. Oh well, anyhow, I would say to make 
> sure that you honor it. 

But then again, that hasn't got anything to do with using @Actions-annotations on class-level?

-- 
Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak@officenet.no>
Senior Software Developer / CEO
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
OfficeNet AS            | The most difficult thing in the world is to |
Rosenholmveien 25       | know how to do a thing and to watch         |
1414 TrollÄsen          | somebody else doing it wrong, without       |
NORWAY                  | comment.                                    |
                        |                                             |
Tlf:    +47 24 15 38 90 |                                             |
Fax:    +47 24 15 38 91 |                                             |
Mobile: +47 909  56 963 |                                             |
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

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


Mime
View raw message