Seems like it'd be easier and cleaner to change the service impl the interceptor uses rather than the interceptor itself.
Dave On Apr 28, 2011 6:54 AM, "Miguel" <mig...@almeida.at> wrote: > Today's question actually follows yesterday's suggestion by Dave of > using the preparable interface and is really an > architecture/convention-over-configuration question: > > - what do you think about the possibility to override an interceptor by > reassigning it in the configuration? I don't think this is possible, but > the idea would be this: > > 1. You are using the <interceptor-ref name="defaultStack" /> > 2. If you define <interceptor name="prepare" class="xxx" /> before this, > the defaultStack would use xxx instead of the default class. > > The usefulness is to be able to use a different implementation of the > interceptor without having to copy-paste te entire stack just to change > this interceptor. > > > I thought of this while testing. My prepare method has a database call. > Now, I have a MyActionValidationIntegrationTest using > StrutsSpringTestCase where the main interest is to test validation. To > increase speed, I am not interested in the database call. With > <interceptor name="prepare" class="xxx" /> I could simply define a fake > xxx for my tests that didn't invoke the prepare() method. > > I believe this also follows the convention-over-configuration pattern: > the default (interceptor) is used unless you redefine it (by writing an > interceptor with the same name)
