You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@struts.apache.org by "Sreekanth S. Nair" <sr...@egovernments.org> on 2013/08/03 22:10:46 UTC
Re: Annotation Support for bypassing prepare
Attaching SkippablePrepareInterceptor and SkipPrepare Annotation Code, I
hope it may helpful for other who have similar requirement. Struts2 can
include it, if strust2 developer think its worthy.
--
Thanks & Regards
Srikanth
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
> Hi Chris, i already answered for the same, we have more than 50 modules
> and 1000 of Action classes. Doing what you say is not an easy task for us
> instead of adding a simple annotation on those method.
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> Srikanth
> Software Developer
> --------------------------------
> eGovernments Foundations
> www.egovernments.org
> Mob : 9980078913
> --------------------------------
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Chris Pratt <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Why not just take your action and move the Preparable interface and
>> prepare() function to a subclass with the methods that require it's
>> support? Seems a lot easier than creating more infrastructure.
>> (*Chris*)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
>> sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
>>
>> > 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 <da...@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.nair@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 <davelnewton@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.nair@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 <
>> > davelnewton@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.nair@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 <
>> > > > pbenedict@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.nair@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 <
>> > > > > > pbenedict@apache.org
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want to bypass it?
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2013 3:47 AM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
>> > > > > > > > > > > sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Is there any annotation available to bypass prepare
>> > > method
>> > > > > > while
>> > > > > > > > > > invoking
>> > > > > > > > > > > > certain methods, just like @skipvalidation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Srikanth
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > e: davelnewton@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: davelnewton@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: davelnewton@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>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Annotation Support for bypassing prepare
Posted by "Sreekanth S. Nair" <sr...@egovernments.org>.
I admit it, thats why i mentioned it as a pinch of performance :) .
--
Thanks & Regards
Srikanth
Software Developer
--------------------------------
eGovernments Foundations
www.egovernments.org
Mob : 9980078913
--------------------------------
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> I don't see a performance concern here. Checking a few strings isn't going
> to slow down anything.
> On Aug 8, 2013 12:06 AM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
> sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
>
> > Guess same performance concern is applicable for that as well. Any ideas
> of
> > making it simpler for existing app without much coding, performance and
> > clumsiness could be better. And i think @SkipPreapre at method level
> gives
> > more visibility than at class level
> > @SkipPrepare({"xdsdasds",ydsdsdsdsds","zsdsdsdsdsds"}).
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards
> > Srikanth
> > Software Developer
> > --------------------------------
> > eGovernments Foundations
> > www.egovernments.org
> > Mob : 9980078913
> > --------------------------------
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Not an array of prepares, but an array of strings for which "execute"
> > > methods the Preaparable callback should be excluded.
> > > On Aug 7, 2013 11:09 PM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
> > > sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > With all gratitude, I strongly disagree with that idea . That bring
> > more
> > > > clumsiness to big strust2 applications. And the idea of taking an
> array
> > > of
> > > > Prepare is a good idea but don't you think it consumes a pinch of
> > runtime
> > > > performance.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Annotation Support for bypassing prepare
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
I don't see a performance concern here. Checking a few strings isn't going
to slow down anything.
On Aug 8, 2013 12:06 AM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
> Guess same performance concern is applicable for that as well. Any ideas of
> making it simpler for existing app without much coding, performance and
> clumsiness could be better. And i think @SkipPreapre at method level gives
> more visibility than at class level
> @SkipPrepare({"xdsdasds",ydsdsdsdsds","zsdsdsdsdsds"}).
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> Srikanth
> Software Developer
> --------------------------------
> eGovernments Foundations
> www.egovernments.org
> Mob : 9980078913
> --------------------------------
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Not an array of prepares, but an array of strings for which "execute"
> > methods the Preaparable callback should be excluded.
> > On Aug 7, 2013 11:09 PM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
> > sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
> >
> > > With all gratitude, I strongly disagree with that idea . That bring
> more
> > > clumsiness to big strust2 applications. And the idea of taking an array
> > of
> > > Prepare is a good idea but don't you think it consumes a pinch of
> runtime
> > > performance.
> > >
> >
>
Re: Annotation Support for bypassing prepare
Posted by "Sreekanth S. Nair" <sr...@egovernments.org>.
Guess same performance concern is applicable for that as well. Any ideas of
making it simpler for existing app without much coding, performance and
clumsiness could be better. And i think @SkipPreapre at method level gives
more visibility than at class level
@SkipPrepare({"xdsdasds",ydsdsdsdsds","zsdsdsdsdsds"}).
--
Thanks & Regards
Srikanth
Software Developer
--------------------------------
eGovernments Foundations
www.egovernments.org
Mob : 9980078913
--------------------------------
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Not an array of prepares, but an array of strings for which "execute"
> methods the Preaparable callback should be excluded.
> On Aug 7, 2013 11:09 PM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
> sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
>
> > With all gratitude, I strongly disagree with that idea . That bring more
> > clumsiness to big strust2 applications. And the idea of taking an array
> of
> > Prepare is a good idea but don't you think it consumes a pinch of runtime
> > performance.
> >
>
Re: Annotation Support for bypassing prepare
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
Not an array of prepares, but an array of strings for which "execute"
methods the Preaparable callback should be excluded.
On Aug 7, 2013 11:09 PM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
> With all gratitude, I strongly disagree with that idea . That bring more
> clumsiness to big strust2 applications. And the idea of taking an array of
> Prepare is a good idea but don't you think it consumes a pinch of runtime
> performance.
>
Re: Annotation Support for bypassing prepare
Posted by "Sreekanth S. Nair" <sr...@egovernments.org>.
With all gratitude, I strongly disagree with that idea . That bring more
clumsiness to big strust2 applications. And the idea of taking an array of
Prepare is a good idea but don't you think it consumes a pinch of runtime
performance.
Re: Annotation Support for bypassing prepare
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
I wonder if perhaps there should be a Preparable2 interface that passes in
the name of the method that will execute. That might be more advanced than
the annotation. OTOH, @SkipPreparable could take an array of method names.
Which is more functional?
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
> Attaching SkippablePrepareInterceptor and SkipPrepare Annotation Code, I
> hope it may helpful for other who have similar requirement. Struts2 can
> include it, if strust2 developer think its worthy.
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> Srikanth
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
> sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris, i already answered for the same, we have more than 50 modules
>> and 1000 of Action classes. Doing what you say is not an easy task for us
>> instead of adding a simple annotation on those method.
>>
>> --
>> Thanks & Regards
>> Srikanth
>> Software Developer
>> --------------------------------
>> eGovernments Foundations
>> www.egovernments.org
>> Mob : 9980078913
>> --------------------------------
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Chris Pratt <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Why not just take your action and move the Preparable interface and
>>> prepare() function to a subclass with the methods that require it's
>>> support? Seems a lot easier than creating more infrastructure.
>>> (*Chris*)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Sreekanth S. Nair <
>>> sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > 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 <da...@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.nair@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 <
>>> davelnewton@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.nair@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 <
>>> > davelnewton@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.nair@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 <
>>> > > > pbenedict@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.nair@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 <
>>> > > > > > pbenedict@apache.org
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > Why would you want to bypass it?
>>> > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2013 3:47 AM, "Sreekanth S. Nair" <
>>> > > > > > > > > > > sreekanth.nair@egovernments.org> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > Is there any annotation available to bypass prepare
>>> > > method
>>> > > > > > while
>>> > > > > > > > > > invoking
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > certain methods, just like @skipvalidation
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > --
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > Srikanth
>>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > --
>>> > > > > > > e: davelnewton@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: davelnewton@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: davelnewton@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>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
--
Cheers,
Paul