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.
> > >
> >
>
