Okay, i can create one for mine, leaving to struts2 framework developer
whether strust2 need an annotation like @SkipPrepare. Thanks for your
support Dave.

-- 
Thanks & Regards
Srikanth
Software Developer
--------------------------------
eGovernments Foundations
www.egovernments.org
Mob : 9980078913
--------------------------------


On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Dave Newton <davelnew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Technically it already *is* part of S2 in the MethodFilterInterceptor
> class.
>
> I'm not particularly excited about an annotation to skip Prepareable, but
> I'm not fundamentally opposed, either.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
> sreekanth.n...@egovernments.org> wrote:
>
> > The idea is precisely good, thats what i wanted but do you think it will
> be
> > a good addition to strust2 framework by any chance then i hope the same
> > could be a part of struts2 framework itself.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards
> > Srikanth
> > Software Developer
> > --------------------------------
> > eGovernments Foundations
> > www.egovernments.org
> > Mob : 9980078913
> > --------------------------------
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Dave Newton <davelnew...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If you'll note in the docs the interceptor extends
> > MethodFilterInterceptor,
> > > so one trivial way to fix it is to configure the interceptor for the
> > > specific actions.
> > >
> > > Another option is to take the existing interceptor and extend it to
> > support
> > > something like annotations, a naming convention, etc. to skip either
> > > specific or general methods.
> > >
> > > E.g., if your validation call was always named the same thing, you
> could
> > > either configure the interceptor package-wide, or change the prepare
> > > interceptor to always skip preparation for methods annotated with
> > > @DoNotPrepare, etc.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
> > > sreekanth.n...@egovernments.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Too many methods :( needs its own prepare then.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks & Regards
> > > > Srikanth
> > > > Software Developer
> > > > --------------------------------
> > > > eGovernments Foundations
> > > > www.egovernments.org
> > > > Mob : 9980078913
> > > > --------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Dave Newton <davelnew...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Did you try `prepareWhateverMethodThatNeedsPrepare`? I don't recall
> > if
> > > > that
> > > > > works or not.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
> > > > > sreekanth.n...@egovernments.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > No i can't do that, because that Action contains other method
> which
> > > > needs
> > > > > > Prepare, the only option i can think of is moving these Ajax
> method
> > > to
> > > > > some
> > > > > > other Action which is not extending Prepareable. But as of now
> its
> > > very
> > > > > > hard because so many resources i have to change. Any other idea?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Thanks & Regards
> > > > > > Srikanth
> > > > > > Software Developer
> > > > > > --------------------------------
> > > > > > eGovernments Foundations
> > > > > > www.egovernments.org
> > > > > > Mob : 9980078913
> > > > > > --------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Paul Benedict <
> > pbened...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have you thought of removing the "implements Preparable" from
> > your
> > > > > > action?
> > > > > > > That will do it.
> > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2013 6:12 AM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
> > > > > > > sreekanth.n...@egovernments.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Suppose i need to call any ajax validation on the same
> Action,
> > it
> > > > > > > > unnecessarily run in to prepare. Where that ajax validation
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > required to call prepare.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards
> > > > > > > > Srikanth
> > > > > > > > Software Developer
> > > > > > > > --------------------------------
> > > > > > > > eGovernments Foundations
> > > > > > > > www.egovernments.org
> > > > > > > > Mob : 9980078913
> > > > > > > > --------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Paul Benedict <
> > > > pbened...@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why would you want to bypass it?
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2013 3:47 AM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
> > > > > > > > > sreekanth.n...@egovernments.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is there any annotation available to bypass prepare
> method
> > > > while
> > > > > > > > invoking
> > > > > > > > > > certain methods, just like @skipvalidation
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards
> > > > > > > > > > Srikanth
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > e: davelnew...@gmail.com
> > > > > m: 908-380-8699
> > > > > s: davelnewton_skype
> > > > > t: @dave_newton <https://twitter.com/dave_newton>
> > > > > b: Bucky Bits <http://buckybits.blogspot.com/>
> > > > > g: davelnewton <https://github.com/davelnewton>
> > > > > so: Dave Newton <http://stackoverflow.com/users/438992/dave-newton
> >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > e: davelnew...@gmail.com
> > > m: 908-380-8699
> > > s: davelnewton_skype
> > > t: @dave_newton <https://twitter.com/dave_newton>
> > > b: Bucky Bits <http://buckybits.blogspot.com/>
> > > g: davelnewton <https://github.com/davelnewton>
> > > so: Dave Newton <http://stackoverflow.com/users/438992/dave-newton>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> e: davelnew...@gmail.com
> m: 908-380-8699
> s: davelnewton_skype
> t: @dave_newton <https://twitter.com/dave_newton>
> b: Bucky Bits <http://buckybits.blogspot.com/>
> g: davelnewton <https://github.com/davelnewton>
> so: Dave Newton <http://stackoverflow.com/users/438992/dave-newton>
>

Reply via email to