Github user cnenning commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/158
sounds great ð
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so,
Github user lukaszlenart commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/158
With the `ActionInvocation` in place I can access an action which means the
action can provide additional informations how to serialise/deserialize
object/string via dedicated interfaces, e.g.
Github user cnenning commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/158
and what is your idea?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes
Github user lukaszlenart commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/158
Merge it first as I think those changes are less intrusive as the whole
idea in my head ;-)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
Github user cnenning commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/158
Do you want to further develop this PR or merge it first?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not
Github user lukaszlenart commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/158
> I don't see where new parameter ActionInvocation is actually used. Is
that yet to come?
Not yet :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user cnenning commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/158
Using `AbstractContentTypeHandler` to implement deprecated methods to log
on WARN seems like a good idea.
I don't see where new parameter `ActionInvocation` is actually used. Is
that yet
