This sounds a bit like "inversion of control". As for me, I'd rather not like to have my model (which is to validate) to have knowledge about the business side validation is triggered from. When I develop from the action perpective, I know if the current method is better off triggering validation or not. This is why I like to place @Validation / @SkipValidation at the action method rather than enlisting this method name somewhere else. But that's just me...
BTW - I wonder if it's time to rethink validation for Struts 3. JSR 303 ff has become really mature and has some pretty advanced features (e.g. validation groups). How about deprecating XWork validation in favor of JSR 303 integration? BTW, since 303 was among others inspired by XWork validation due to Jason Careira being on the initial EG, it wouldn't be too much of a break with our traditions :) - René 2013/6/28 Maurizio Cucchiara <mcucchi...@apache.org> > Hi Paul, > actually there is one way: using @SkipValidation combined with @Validation > Or maybe I miss the point. Is there something better in your approach? > > On 28 June 2013 05:38, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I was thinking it would be a good idea to add "String[] actions" on the > > validations. When empty, it means all methods; otherwise only the methods > > the validation should be executing with. > > > > I don't think there's a current way to do this except through XML. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara > G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921 > Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara > VisualizeMe: http://vizualize.me/maurizio.cucchiara?r=maurizio.cucchiara > > Maurizio Cucchiara >
