Gabriel, You're of course very welcome to propose improvements. I am very interested in seeing how you will prevent the ugly downcasting while retaining some flexibility with regard to using different validation libraries.
-- Roelof. On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Gabriel Schenker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > thanks for the reply. I think that's another reason why we should refactor > the whole validation stuff. > The first one I have already described in a previous post where I talked > about the problem we have when using JQuery for validation. The JQuery > validation plug-in expects uses name attribute of a form element when > defining rules and the validation framework of Monorail only provides the id > attribute... > As soon as I have some time I'll start to refactor and make a proposal. > What do you think? > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:51 AM, hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Gabriel Schenker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > is there a "proper" way of doing it? >> >> I dont think there's any other way. The goal was that each custom >> validator could build their browser validation representation using >> the existing methods on IBrowserValidationGenerator, mostly regexp >> based. In your case, you added a custom method to >> IBrowserValidationGenerator so I'm afraid that's the only way to call >> it. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> hammett >> http://hammett.castleproject.org/ >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Users" 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-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
