struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ken McWilliams <ken.mcwilli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Strict DMI
Date Wed, 09 Oct 2013 22:58:59 GMT
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
>
>

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