Does this handle varying JavaScript validation implementations, are are you basically committed to using one in particular?
On Jan 11, 2008 9:12 AM, Bob Silverberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's a high-level summary of what I do: > > 1. I define all of my validation rules in the model, so they are defined > in one place only. E.g., the User model contains the validation rules for > Users. > 2. When I need to generate validations I ask the model for the > validations, which in my implementation are returned in an array. > 3. When I need to process validations, I just loop through the array and > generate a validation for each validation rule. I can do this as part of my > Update routine for server side validations and I use these to generate my > Javascript validations in my view code just before rendering the page. > > So, I have all of the validation rules specified in one location only (the > model), when I need them (either to render a screen or to do an update) I > just ask the model for them, and I have two versions of code that can use > those validations rules to implement actual validations (one for server side > and one for Javascript). > > HTH, > Bob > > > > On Jan 11, 2008 4:46 AM, Alan Livie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I still haven't come up with a solution for this. > > > > I am working on a project removing duplicated code, creating a basic > > domain model from a procedural app but one place where business rules > > are being duplicated is in the js validation files that check forms on > > the site. > > > > I could generate the js from the CFC's that handle the business rules > > but not sure the best way to go about this. > > > > I could also use AJAX to do the validation server-side but I'm also > > uncomfortable having the server do extra work when it doesn't need to > > (and be slightly slower than client-side js) > > > > Someone mentioned on this group that Brian Kotek tacked this problem > > using the Bridge Pattern. > > Brian, if you read this can you give more details on this. I'd be > > interested if you have worked on this problem. > > > > Anyone else with ideas? > > > > Alan > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" 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/cfcdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
