Hi all again, what do you think about: a) importing the commons-validator and wrapping it in our routines/constraints
OR b) porting the commons-validator code I suggest to take in consideration the solution a) even if b) fascinates me, since bval could become commons-validator2. But what's your opinion about that? Many thanks in advance, have a nice day, Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Simone Tripodi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all guys > just to let you know I'm going to add the bval-extras module + > packages according to Donald's suggestion. > Have a nice day, > Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> +1 for bval-extras >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> PS: please look at BVAL-1 ;) >> >> --- On Wed, 12/8/10, Donald Woods <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> From: Donald Woods <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: Adding aux constraints >>> To: [email protected] >>> Date: Wednesday, December 8, 2010, 3:58 PM >>> bval-extras or bval-validator sounds >>> good. >>> I'd try the following mappings: >>> >>> org/apache/commons/validator/*Validator -> >>> org.apache.bval.extras.constraints.*Validator >>> >>> org/apache/commons/validator/routines/*Validator -> >>> org.apache.bval.extras.constraints.routines.*Validator >>> >>> Looking at bval-jsr303, we currently have our constraints >>> under >>> org.apache.bval.constraints, which we should probably >>> change over to >>> org.apache.bval.jsr303.constraints to really denote these >>> are only the >>> spec required ones. >>> >>> >>> -Donald >>> >>> >>> On 12/7/10 3:55 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >>> > Hi Donald, >>> > thanks for your feedback, what about adding a new >>> module 'bval-extras' >>> > where putting all non-JSR303 constraints? >>> > Thanks in advance, have a nice day, >>> > Simo >>> > >>> > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> > http://www.99soft.org/ >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Donald Woods <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> Sounds like a good idea, but we need to somehow >>> distinguish between the >>> >> JSR required constraints and any extras we >>> supply. So, any non-JSR >>> >> required constraints would not go into the >>> bval-jsr303 module, but >>> >> should go somewhere else (don't have a good >>> suggestion right now.....) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -Donald >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 12/2/10 9:13 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >>> >>> Hi all guys, >>> >>> I think it could be good and I'd like to >>> propose to add/migrate the >>> >>> existing commons-validator routines[1] into >>> our constraints[2] >>> >>> package, what do you think? >>> >>> Many thanks in advance, >>> >>> Simo >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/validator/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/validator/routines/ >>> >>> [2] >>> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bval/trunk/bval-jsr303/src/main/java/org/apache/bval/constraints/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> >
