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 14:29:30 GMT
If @Action is to be allowed at the method level, do its annotation's
attributes still make sense? I am not asking rhetorically. If not, it is
better to create a new annotation.


On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Ken McWilliams <ken.mcwilliams@gmail.com>wrote:

> I didn't mean to say that "action:" didn't make any sense, which I agree it
> doesn't; But that "method:" really isn't any different. The @Action
> annotation can be applied at the method level of the action class. The
> use-case for the method prefix seems to be completely addressed by using
> the @Action annotation at the method level, multiple times in one action.
> Thus a @Method annotation would serve little purpose since there is already
> an obvious remedy.
>
> What I meant by the definition of action being taken in a different
> context... the documentation of the "method:" prefix seems to indicate that
> the Action Class is the "action" and that it is somehow convenient to be
> able to address another method of the _action_. Why not just do it
> directly? That is why I ask: What am I missing?
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>



-- 
Cheers,
Paul

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