On 21/09/2008, at 8:08 PM, Tim Perrett wrote:
> > Sounds good Marius - project wise though we need to address this IMHO; > as we pick up more users of lift people will want this functionality > for sure. Yes, or be forced to roll their own validation > > I guess we really need to decide at what level we want to apply > validation - Im not sure that having it tightly coupled to the > persistence tier (a la rails) is a great idea. Just had a quick look > at OVal.... i think a generic approach like that would be good as then > your just dealing with a single methodology to spec validation > criterion on any object. It would be nice to be able to mixin the same major validations (e.g notNull, Range) automatically to the client via prewriten javascript, as well as the "bind" and the persistence layer > Also, conceptually, a server side representation of a form seems to be > a different notion to the bind() style we have with snippets. Im not > sure how we could get it to work in a clean way - would it be an > abstraction on top of bind() ? I like the idea of a server side representation of a form with validation. I think the "bind style" may change when a compiler plugin gets rid of its redundancy > Anyway, great to noodle this as its certainly very important going > forward > > Cheers > > Tim > > > On Sep 21, 7:44 am, Marius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Right ... >> >> IMHO the key things that we need to have : >> >> 1. Typesafe validation (predicates as partial functions sounds very >> good to me ;) ... ) >> 2. Scala objects abstracting forms ... maybe in a way you similar >> with >> what presented here (also this has been mentioned in other posts) >> 3. An easy way of obtaining markup from "Form" classes >> 4. An easy way of processing the form (this is the easiest part as we >> have all we need here) >> >> I'll also do some noodling on this and let's come with concrete >> proposals. >> >> P.S. >> Some ideas are currently here:http://liftweb.net/index.php/Unified_Validation >> >> Br's, >> Marius >> >> On Sep 20, 8:46 pm, Tim Perrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Guys, >> >>> Myself and Marius have just been talking over IM about generic >>> ways to >>> build validation into lift. >> >>> IMHO, right now it seems that there is not any cohesive way to >>> validate user input (without a bunch of manual coding). One of the >>> things we talked about is server-side form representation... I >>> wonder >>> if there is a way to abstract form building so that it was somehow >>> generic and let you specify field content & type and also the >>> validation that needs to be applied to that control. >> >>> This just pure spitballing, but what about something like: >> >>> class MyDemoFrom extends LiftForm { >>> def someInput = TextInput(SHtml.text(<usual stuff>), Validatons({ >>> // whatever validation here >>> })) >> >>> } >> >>> Or whatever - I just want to try and talk through the idea rather >>> than >>> propose code at this stage. Even when we extract the validation >>> stuff >>> from mapper, we'll still need some way of implementing those >>> validation constraints on controls wont we? >> >>> Interesting in what people think >> >>> Cheers >> >>> Tim > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
