If @Action is to be allowed at the method level, do its annotation's attributes still make sense? I am not asking rhetorically. If not, it is better to create a new annotation.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Ken McWilliams <ken.mcwilli...@gmail.com>wrote: > I didn't mean to say that "action:" didn't make any sense, which I agree it > doesn't; But that "method:" really isn't any different. The @Action > annotation can be applied at the method level of the action class. The > use-case for the method prefix seems to be completely addressed by using > the @Action annotation at the method level, multiple times in one action. > Thus a @Method annotation would serve little purpose since there is already > an obvious remedy. > > What I meant by the definition of action being taken in a different > context... the documentation of the "method:" prefix seems to indicate that > the Action Class is the "action" and that it is somehow convenient to be > able to address another method of the _action_. Why not just do it > directly? That is why I ask: What am I missing? > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > -- Cheers, Paul
