I admit it, thats why i mentioned it as a pinch of performance :) .
--
Thanks & Regards
Srikanth
Software Developer
--------------------------------
eGovernments Foundations
www.egovernments.org
Mob : 9980078913
--------------------------------
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote:
> I don't see a performance concern here. Checking a few strings isn't going
> to slow down anything.
> On Aug 8, 2013 12:06 AM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
> sreekanth.n...@egovernments.org> wrote:
>
> > Guess same performance concern is applicable for that as well. Any ideas
> of
> > making it simpler for existing app without much coding, performance and
> > clumsiness could be better. And i think @SkipPreapre at method level
> gives
> > more visibility than at class level
> > @SkipPrepare({"xdsdasds",ydsdsdsdsds","zsdsdsdsdsds"}).
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards
> > Srikanth
> > Software Developer
> > --------------------------------
> > eGovernments Foundations
> > www.egovernments.org
> > Mob : 9980078913
> > --------------------------------
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Not an array of prepares, but an array of strings for which "execute"
> > > methods the Preaparable callback should be excluded.
> > > On Aug 7, 2013 11:09 PM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
> > > sreekanth.n...@egovernments.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > With all gratitude, I strongly disagree with that idea . That bring
> > more
> > > > clumsiness to big strust2 applications. And the idea of taking an
> array
> > > of
> > > > Prepare is a good idea but don't you think it consumes a pinch of
> > runtime
> > > > performance.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
