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 <[email protected]>: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> > 2013/10/3 Steven Benitez <[email protected]>: >> > > 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: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Paul >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
