struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Strict DMI
Date Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:40:21 GMT
Ken,

I don't think "action:" will be supported beyond 2.5. It is a feature that
doesn't make sense. All buttons that belong to a form need to be processed
by the action of the form for security to work. That's what I think.

Paul


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Ken McWilliams <ken.mcwilliams@gmail.com>wrote:

> What am I missing? Why not just the @action annotation? The whole method
> annotation seems to have risen out of a poor definition of "action". I
> consider the action the entire follow of execution. From mapping to result
> (Interceptors and the Action class too).
>
> From the DefaultActionMapper documentation:
>
> *With method-prefix, instead of calling baz action's execute() method (by
> default if it isn't overriden in struts.xml to be something else), the baz
> action's anotherMethod() will be called. A very elegant way determine which
> button is clicked. Alternatively, one would have submit button set a
> particular value on the action when clicked, and the execute() method
> decides on what to do with the setted value depending on which button is
> clicked. *
>
> If you need an annotation on "anotherMethod" @action would be functionally
> equivalent to @method. Of course you wouldn't be able to use the "method:"
> prefix but then you wouldn't have any need.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Lukasz Lenart <lukaszlenart@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > I think @ActionMethod or @Method is very handy. I'm still wondering
> > about how to map which actions are allowed to be used with "action:"
> > prefix - what about dropping "action:" prefix and stick only with
> > "method:" and "<s:form method=...>" ?
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Łukasz
> > + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
> >
> > 2013/10/4 Steven Benitez <steven.benitez@gmail.com>:
> > > I suggested this because I wrote an interceptor to require the
> > > @ActionMethod annotation years ago to lock down DMI. The upside to a
> > > separate annotation was that it was completely compatible with XML
> > > configuration (which I use). It also had a nice benefit of being
> > > documentation, as well. No ambiguity as to whether an method was an
> > > invocable action method or just a method that returned a String.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I like that WAY better. Instead of using opaque strings in @Action,
> use
> > >> @ActionMethod on the destination methods. +1
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Lukasz Lenart <
> lukaszlenart@apache.org
> > >> >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > 2013/10/3 Steven Benitez <steven.benitez@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > Why not just have an @ActionMethod annotation? If its on the
> action
> > >> > method,
> > >> > > you can invoke it, if not, you can't. The global config option
for
> > >> > allowed
> > >> > > methods sounds reasonable (e.g., execute, input, etc.)
> > >> >
> > >> > Nice idea and quite simple :-) What about "allowedActions" ? Maybe
> > >> > extend @Action annotation and add "callable = true|false" which will
> > >> > indicate if action can be called by action: prefix.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards
> > >> > --
> > >> > Łukasz
> > >> > + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
> > >> >
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>



-- 
Cheers,
Paul

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