I agree with you and I think that the difference is how we see the
role of the validator project on it.

For me, the validator project provides those interfaces and a default
implementation for them. I don't see the need to create another
abstraction for it (at least inside the Castle project). In fact, it's
on my todo list to evaluate how hard/valuable would be integrate the
validator project with the system.data.annotations validators.


Cheers,
Henry Conceição



On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:34 AM, John Simons
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Because it doesn't make sense.
> If I'm writing a framework (forget about MR) and my framework requires to
> have pluggable validation, I would create my own pluggable interfaces (that
> each validation provider would have to adhere to), I would not use the
> Castle Validation ones. Would you?
> Maybe this is just me :-|
>
> Cheers
> John
>
> ________________________________
> From: Henry Conceição <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Tue, 28 September, 2010 2:22:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Looking to get a resolution on Binder + Pagination
>
> Why not?
>
> Cheers,
> Henry Conceição
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:03 AM, John Simons
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think MR should be extensible enough so that users can implement their
>> own
>> validation of their own choice.
>> So if that means that we need some kind of interfaces (
>> IValidatorRegistry/IValidatorRunner) in MR then that is fine.
>> But these should not exist in the Validation framework, because you are
>> never going to plugin another Validation framework into our validation
>> framework.
>>
>> Cheers
>> John
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Henry Conceição <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Sent: Tue, 28 September, 2010 1:54:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: Looking to get a resolution on Binder + Pagination
>>
>> If we decouple the validator from mr, we'll end up creating the same
>> set of generic interfaces for validation wouldn't we?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Henry Conceição
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:27 PM, John Simons
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Which seems to be the wrong way.
>>> MR framework should be supplying the API extension points for any
>>> validation
>>> framework to adhere to, and not the other way around.
>>> Or am I looking at the picture the wrong way?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> John
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Henry Conceição <[email protected]>
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Sent: Tue, 28 September, 2010 1:17:35 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Looking to get a resolution on Binder + Pagination
>>>
>>> The extension point is the validator project itself. You can implement
>>> a IValidatorRegistry/IValidatorRunner set to plug another framework.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Henry Conceição
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:05 PM, John Simons
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Binder depends on:
>>>> -ValidatorRunner
>>>> -ErrorSummary
>>>>
>>>> MR depends on:
>>>> -ValidatorRunner
>>>> -ErrorSummary
>>>> -ValidatorRegistry
>>>> -BrowserValidationConfiguration
>>>> -IValidator
>>>> -IBrowserValidationGenerator
>>>> -CachedValidationRegistry
>>>> -InputElementType
>>>>
>>>> Looking at it, MR is quite coupled to our Validation project, it would
>>>> not
>>>> be easy to remove this coupling and allow MR to support any other
>>>> validation
>>>> framework without major changes.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]>
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Sent: Tue, 28 September, 2010 12:38:36 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Looking to get a resolution on Binder + Pagination
>>>>
>>>> Does Mr depend on validator except for via binder?
>>>>
>>>> sent from my HTC Desire
>>>>
>>>> On 28/09/2010 12:27 PM, "John Simons" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Binder depends on Validation, one interface:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://github.com/castleproject/Castle.Components.Binder/blob/master/src/Castle.Components.Binder/IDataBinder.cs
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]>
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Sent: Tue, 28 September, 2010 12:20:07 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Looking to get a resolution on Binder + Pagination
>>>>
>>>> What's the dependency chain between them?
>>>>
>>>> Does pagination depend on Binder? What for?
>>>>
>>>> On 28/09/20...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups
>>>> "Castle Project Deve...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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