I checked a new validation framework into Xwork this morning that I got
running last night. It's based on some ideas like runtime attributes and
deployment descriptors. What it does (triggered by a
ValidationInterceptor in the interceptor list for an action) is to load
validation xml files for the
How would you handle i18n support, and parametrised messages?
Eg, if you wanted '${0} is an invalid name' as your message
Quoting Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I checked a new validation framework into Xwork this morning that I got
running last night. It's based on some ideas like runtime
: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework (checked into Xwork)
How would you handle i18n support, and parametrised messages?
Eg, if you wanted '${0} is an invalid name' as your message
Quoting Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I checked a new validation framework into Xwork this morning that I
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 6:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework (checked into Xwork)
Jason,
Why are you writing a new validation framework when FormProc
has already
gone through these issues? Check out FormProc
fashion then you may as well take
advantage of FormProc's maturity.
Sincerely,
Anthony Eden
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Eden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 6:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework (checked into Xwork
FormProc can do as much or as little as you like. If you
only specify a
validator then the values will only be validated. If you want to use
FormProc to do type conversion then you can specify a type converter.
This goes the same for storing the data (in a bean, hash map, etc),
