Hi Roman, indeed a) implies a not-so-nice-to-have dependency :( that's why I asked so we can evaluate and make a decision. b) shouldn't be hard to achieve, they have a validation interface, the logic should me more or less intuitive to replicate... I'll have a look at it. Have a nice day, Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Roman Stumm <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 08.12.10 21:46, schrieb Simone Tripodi: >> >> 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/ > > I am not so happy if bval becomes dependent on commons-validator (a). but I > cannot decide if option (b) is feasible. >
