https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-3123
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Musachy Barroso <musa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Right now there is no way, we could add a flag that check if there are > annotated methods, and prevents the mapping of "execute" > > musachy > > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Dave Newton <newton.d...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Crombie, Joe - BRS wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> I'm currently switching to 2.1.6 and the Convention plugin for >>> configuration. I tend to use POJOs for my Action classes, and map >>> actions to methods. >>> My problem is that when I extend ActionSupport, Convention generates a >>> default mapping to the execute method (which I generally don't provide). >> >> If you're extending ActionSupport there's an execute() method. (As well as >> input.) >> >> I'd think the easiest, quickest, dirtiest solution would just be to provide >> an execute() that either provides a "nocontents" result as you said or map >> it to something else in the action. Making it private might work, but I >> haven't tried it. >> >> Off the top of my head I don't know an easy way to not have some methods >> mapped. >> >> Dave >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org >> >> > > > > -- > "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd > -- "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
