as deprecated. Just my 2 cents.
What do others think?
- Original Message
From: Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List dev@struts.apache.org
Sent: Monday, 19 June, 2006 7:49:40 AM
Subject: Re: [action2] Removal of AroundInterceptor and doXXX support from xwork
My only
I see your concern.
I don't use doXXX and extends my custom interceptor
off Interceptor interface, so it wouldn't be of any
impact to me, but I am not sure about other WebWork
users.
Since this is a SAF2 release, I'd prefer to either
remove them totally or keep them, rather than marking
I don't use them.
On 6/19/06, Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see your concern.
I don't use doXXX and extends my custom interceptor
off Interceptor interface, so it wouldn't be of any
impact to me, but I am not sure about other WebWork
users.
Since this is a SAF2 release, I'd
+1 for removing them
-
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=34665messageID=67801#67801
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Hi guys,
Just want to confirm something. Is it correct to say that we have come to a
conclusion as to remove support of AroundInterceptor and support for doXXX
action method call as a fall back after xXX method is not found?
If so, we should make the changes towards XWork2 (the XWork CVS
My only concern is WW 2.2 migrations. If it will require them to
perform significant work (more than a simple rename), we should just
deprecate the feature and perhaps throw a warning. Otherwise, I think
we should remove it.
Don
tm jee wrote:
Hi guys,
Just want to confirm something. Is
