Ken, I don't think "action:" will be supported beyond 2.5. It is a feature that doesn't make sense. All buttons that belong to a form need to be processed by the action of the form for security to work. That's what I think.
Paul On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Ken McWilliams <ken.mcwilli...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 <lukaszlen...@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.beni...@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 <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 > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > > > > > -- Cheers, Paul
