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 <pbened...@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 <lukaszlen...@apache.org > >wrote: > > > 2013/10/3 Steven Benitez <steven.beni...@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-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Paul >
