This is the best proposed solution and I am surprised it didn't become part of Struts: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-1967
We should add another level of XML filename checking to to be <ActionName>-<MethodName>-.xml Thoughts? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>wrote: > I am glad you're familiar with validation groups -- because that's exactly > what I was alluding to. I see the Struts 2 documentation allows me to > target validation on a particular method through XML only; Struts 2 simply > lacks the annotation counterpart. If today I have to use XML, okay, but > just wanted to see if I may have overlooked the existence of the other. > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Rene Gielen <rene.gie...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> This sounds a bit like "inversion of control". As for me, I'd rather not >> like to have my model (which is to validate) to have knowledge about the >> business side validation is triggered from. When I develop from the action >> perpective, I know if the current method is better off triggering >> validation or not. This is why I like to place @Validation / >> @SkipValidation at the action method rather than enlisting this method >> name >> somewhere else. But that's just me... >> >> BTW - I wonder if it's time to rethink validation for Struts 3. JSR 303 ff >> has become really mature and has some pretty advanced features (e.g. >> validation groups). How about deprecating XWork validation in favor of JSR >> 303 integration? BTW, since 303 was among others inspired by XWork >> validation due to Jason Careira being on the initial EG, it wouldn't be >> too >> much of a break with our traditions :) >> >> - René >> >> >> 2013/6/28 Maurizio Cucchiara <mcucchi...@apache.org> >> >> > Hi Paul, >> > actually there is one way: using @SkipValidation combined with >> @Validation >> > Or maybe I miss the point. Is there something better in your approach? >> > >> > On 28 June 2013 05:38, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > I was thinking it would be a good idea to add "String[] actions" on >> the >> > > validations. When empty, it means all methods; otherwise only the >> methods >> > > the validation should be executing with. >> > > >> > > I don't think there's a current way to do this except through XML. >> > > >> > > Thoughts? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara >> > G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921 >> > Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara >> > VisualizeMe: >> http://vizualize.me/maurizio.cucchiara?r=maurizio.cucchiara >> > >> > Maurizio Cucchiara >> > >> > >
