I still don't believe using a framework-defined method, whose intent is to
return a string result name, to load data is an expressive design.
On Nov 6, 2010 2:36 AM, "Maurizio Cucchiara" <maurizio.cucchi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> InputConfig works as documented. I reccomend to use Li's suggestion
> for inheritance matter. When you need to overwrite base class
> behavior, then mark method with InputConfig annotation.
>
> 2010/11/5 Alfredo Manuel Osorio Martinez <alfredo.oso...@afirme.com>:
>> Hello,
>>
>> By looking at DefaultWorkflowInterceptor I saw an annotation that I
>> didn't know existed. I am talking about:
>>
>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.interceptor.annotations.InputConfig
>>
>> I think it can be used for input repopulation and can be used as an
>> alternative to Preparable and <s:action/>.
>>
>> What surprised me was that there is a little documentation about the use
>> of the annotation or examples.
>>
>> Haver you ever used this one before?
>>
>> Is it a good idea to use it for input repopulation for example
>> collections for selects in case a validation fails?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Maurizio Cucchiara
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
>
