2013/11/6 Ali Akhtar :
> I'd be in favor of your proposal if it could be defined per package / per
> stack.
I have checked that and it isn't possible or rather it isn't easily
possible to implement such logic.
Regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
---
I'd be in favor of your proposal if it could be defined per package / per
stack.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Lukasz Lenart wrote:
> 2013/11/6 Ali Akhtar :
> > Right, but say you wanted to change the order slightly or insert one
> > interceptor before / after one from the top package. Now you
2013/11/6 Ali Akhtar :
> Right, but say you wanted to change the order slightly or insert one
> interceptor before / after one from the top package. Now you'd have to copy
> the whole stack to the other package.
So then you should define few stacks as it's done in struts-default.xml
And in my prop
Right, but say you wanted to change the order slightly or insert one
interceptor before / after one from the top package. Now you'd have to copy
the whole stack to the other package.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Lukasz Lenart wrote:
> 2013/11/5 Ali Akhtar :
> > There's one case where it may b
2013/11/5 Ali Akhtar :
> There's one case where it may be useful to have these listeners. Suppose if
> you have a lot of packages, and you just need to modify one or two
> interceptors in each package. You would have to paste your whole
> interceptor stack in order to do this.
>
> I think this feat
API.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Umesh
> > Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steven Benitez
> > Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:00:14
> > To: Struts Developers List
> > Reply-To: "Struts
--Original Message-
> From: Steven Benitez
> Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:00:14
> To: Struts Developers List
> Reply-To: "Struts Developers List"
> Subject: Re: InterceptorListeners
>
> I feel pretty strongly that we should not broaden the API to accommodate
>
List
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List"
Subject: Re: InterceptorListeners
I feel pretty strongly that we should not broaden the API to accommodate
users who don't know how to use the existing API, which is really pretty
straight forward. We'd be better off educating us
I feel pretty strongly that we should not broaden the API to accommodate
users who don't know how to use the existing API, which is really pretty
straight forward. We'd be better off educating users how the existing
interceptor API works rather than introducing new complexity.
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013
2013/11/5 Steven Benitez :
> Why not just create an interceptor and run it before or after the
> interceptor you need? What specific use case does this address?
You are perfectly right, it's the prefer way to achieve the same behaviour.
But there are some users which just stick with defaultStack
Why not just create an interceptor and run it before or after the
interceptor you need? What specific use case does this address?
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013, Ali Akhtar wrote:
> It could be useful, especially for the interceptors in the default stack.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Lukas
It could be useful, especially for the interceptors in the default stack.
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Lukasz Lenart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What do you think about adding possibility to create listeners which
> will be executed before/after given interceptor?
>
> Something like this:
>
> public int
Hi,
What do you think about adding possibility to create listeners which
will be executed before/after given interceptor?
Something like this:
public interface InterceptorListener {
boolean accept(InterceptorMapping mapping);
void beforeInterceptor(ActionInvocation invocation);
vo
13 matches
Mail list logo
