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 wr
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 ap
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","z
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
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.
I wonder if perhaps there should be a Preparable2 interface that passes in
the name of the method that will execute. That might be more advanced than
the annotation. OTOH, @SkipPreparable could take an array of method names.
Which is more functional?
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Sreekanth S.
Attaching SkippablePrepareInterceptor and SkipPrepare Annotation Code, I
hope it may helpful for other who have similar requirement. Struts2 can
include it, if strust2 developer think its worthy.
--
Thanks & Regards
Srikanth
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
sreekanth.n...@e
Hi Chris, i already answered for the same, we have more than 50 modules and
1000 of Action classes. Doing what you say is not an easy task for us
instead of adding a simple annotation on those method.
--
Thanks & Regards
Srikanth
Software Developer
eGovernments Fo
Why not just take your action and move the Preparable interface and
prepare() function to a subclass with the methods that require it's
support? Seems a lot easier than creating more infrastructure.
(*Chris*)
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
sreekanth.n...@egovernments.org
Okay, i can create one for mine, leaving to struts2 framework developer
whether strust2 need an annotation like @SkipPrepare. Thanks for your
support Dave.
--
Thanks & Regards
Srikanth
Software Developer
eGovernments Foundations
www.egovernments.org
Mob : 99800789
Technically it already *is* part of S2 in the MethodFilterInterceptor class.
I'm not particularly excited about an annotation to skip Prepareable, but
I'm not fundamentally opposed, either.
Dave
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
sreekanth.n...@egovernments.org> wrote:
> The
The idea is precisely good, thats what i wanted but do you think it will be
a good addition to strust2 framework by any chance then i hope the same
could be a part of struts2 framework itself.
--
Thanks & Regards
Srikanth
Software Developer
eGovernments Foundation
If you'll note in the docs the interceptor extends MethodFilterInterceptor,
so one trivial way to fix it is to configure the interceptor for the
specific actions.
Another option is to take the existing interceptor and extend it to support
something like annotations, a naming convention, etc. to sk
Too many methods :( needs its own prepare then.
--
Thanks & Regards
Srikanth
Software Developer
eGovernments Foundations
www.egovernments.org
Mob : 9980078913
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Dave Newton wrote:
> Did you try `p
Did you try `prepareWhateverMethodThatNeedsPrepare`? I don't recall if that
works or not.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
sreekanth.n...@egovernments.org> wrote:
> No i can't do that, because that Action contains other method which needs
> Prepare, the only option i can thin
No i can't do that, because that Action contains other method which needs
Prepare, the only option i can think of is moving these Ajax method to some
other Action which is not extending Prepareable. But as of now its very
hard because so many resources i have to change. Any other idea?
--
Thanks
Have you thought of removing the "implements Preparable" from your action?
That will do it.
On Jul 26, 2013 6:12 AM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
sreekanth.n...@egovernments.org> wrote:
> Suppose i need to call any ajax validation on the same Action, it
> unnecessarily run in to prepare. Where that ajax
Suppose i need to call any ajax validation on the same Action, it
unnecessarily run in to prepare. Where that ajax validation doesn't
required to call prepare.
--
Thanks & Regards
Srikanth
Software Developer
eGovernments Foundations
www.egovernments.org
Mob : 9980
Why would you want to bypass it?
On Jul 26, 2013 3:47 AM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
sreekanth.n...@egovernments.org> wrote:
> Is there any annotation available to bypass prepare method while invoking
> certain methods, just like @skipvalidation
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> Srikanth
>
Is there any annotation available to bypass prepare method while invoking
certain methods, just like @skipvalidation
--
Thanks & Regards
Srikanth
20 matches
Mail list logo
