struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Benitez <steven.beni...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Strict DMI
Date Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:22:24 GMT
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
> > --
> > Ɓukasz
> > + 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
>

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