A few more thoughts. Validation using Attributes is bad! Let me explain the above sentence, I'll use a scenario, in an ordering system users are allowed to save incomplete orders, but until the user tries to submit the order it's not really an error.
In the scenario above the validation rules for the Order change according to "Context", and Context is very important. So, I think you should aim at replacing the attributes with a fluent validation API that can be changed based on Context. Have a look at http://www.codeplex.com/FluentValidation Thoughts? Cheers John On Jan 14, 11:44 am, John Simons <[email protected]> wrote: > I see now :) > That could be implemented the same way as the support for web browser > validation. > Just another extension point to generate database schemas. > > Also, we should look at System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations Namespace > -http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.dataann... > > ________________________________ > From: G. Richard Bellamy <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thu, 14 January, 2010 11:29:09 AM > Subject: RE: Some thoughts on the Validator Component Roadmap > > This is from Ayende’s example > (http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2009/05/01/nhibernate-validator.aspx) > and uses the NH Validation syntax: > --------------- > [NotNullNotEmpty] > [Length(25)] > publicvirtual string Title > > Schema Generation - > Before: Title NVARCHAR(255) null > > After: Title NVARCHAR(25) not null > > From:[email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Simons > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the Validator Component Roadmap > > Point > 3 should actually be, it provides an extension point to support web browser > validation. > > What is point 2, an example please? > > Cheers > John > > ________________________________ > > From:G. Richard Bellamy > <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thu, 14 January, 2010 10:32:02 AM > Subject: Some thoughts on the Validator Component Roadmap > I’d like to see: > 1. Model validation > 2. Schema generation based on Validation Attributes > 3. Client-side validation using jQuery or Prototype or whatever > > From what I know (and please correct me if I’m wrong), we > currently do #1 & #3. NH does #1 & #2. > > As I see it, I have two options: > 1. Get with the NH Validation folks, and see what it would take to merge > the two codebases, or > 2. Make our Validation compliant with the NH Schema generation process. > > Also, didn’t someone mention the idea of a standardized > validation interface, kinda like the Common Service Locator interface? Did I > completely mis-remember that? > > Thoughts? > > -rb > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Castle Project Development List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en. > > ________________________________ > > See > what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Castle Project Development List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en. > > > __________________________________________________________________________________ > See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out > now:http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
