I think I would agree actually. I'm not sure about the performance implications. I had only planned on preventing the parameters interceptor setting to them, so it wouldn't be on every field access.
----- Original message ----- From: "Chris Pratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:06:07 -0700 Subject: Re: [S2] Plugins gone wild! > My initial > idea was another flag on the parameter interceptor which, when enabled, > would only set against the action when an annotation is present on the > setter. It might make more sense for this feature/annotation to be part > of the annotations plugin. Does anyone else see this as a useful > feautre? I'd rather annotate what I want to permit to be set than > exclude my DAO/Services (which are required by the Spring plugin). Actually, I'd turn it around a bit. I'd rather annotate when something should be hidden from Struts then to have to add an annotation to every mutator in the system. And, I'm actually don't know so this is a question, not a criticism, but would checking those annotations on every field access slow down the system? (*Chris*) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
