Agree, but I would look at obsolete it in the next version and
eventually remove Attribute validation for subsequent releases.

Cheers
John

On Feb 7, 10:03 am, "G. Richard Bellamy" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I'll definitely take a look, though I'd still need to support the
> attributes, cuz that's a big breaking change.
>
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM, John Simons <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> 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 athttp://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]<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]<castle-project-devel%[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]<castle-project-devel%[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]<castle-project-devel%[email protected]>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to