I'm not sure how possible that would be... Actually, I'm relatively certain that it would be difficult... It might be a feature we could add with Xwork 1.1 when we rewrite the configuration API to actually be runtime programmatically changeable...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Cameron Braid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] formbean vs. action > > > OK.. I like the sound of that ProhibitedFieldValidator :) > > Would it be possible, and a good idea to allow > parameterization of interceptors that are on a particular > stack, using the below technique ? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jason Carreira > Sent: Friday, 19 September 2003 2:37 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] formbean vs. action > > > That's true, but you could check the param map and see if > there's anything not allowed in there and add errors... > Which, with the DefaultWorkflowInterceptor, would cause the > Action not to execute. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Cameron Braid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:20 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] formbean vs. action > > > > > > I thought that the validator interceptor executed after the params > > interceptor.. How does this field validator prevent the params > > interceptor from setting the params ? > > > > Another way to do it is to use a comma delimited list of > allowed, or > > disallowed expressions for the params interceptor to use on a per > > action basis. > > > > This makes it hard to use interceptor stacks ... Though it could be > > simplified by the introduction of a new <interceptor-param> tag : > > > > <action name="UpdateInvoice" class="..."> > > > > <result.../> > > <interceptor-ref name="defaultStack"/> > > <interceptor-param ref="params" > > name="disallowed">invoice.balance</interceptor-param> > > > > </action> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of > > Jason Carreira > > Sent: Friday, 19 September 2003 12:52 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] formbean vs. action > > > > > > Sounds like a good one... Especially since you could use the same > > Action with different validations to block some params in some > > situations and other parameters in others... > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tracy Snell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 9:49 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] formbean vs. action > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/03 3:59 AM, "Matt Ho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Another method which might also work, but is a little > more heavy > > > > handed is to write a custom TypeConverter for fields you > > > want to mark > > > > as hidden. For example, if I balance is reserved for > > internal use > > > > only, I could write a Type converted that threw away and > > user data > > > > that attempted to set balance. > > > > > > I added a ProhibitedFieldValidator for another method. If > > folks think > > > it's a good idea I'll write the unit tests and submit it. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
