On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Ivelin Ivanov wrote:
> >
> > exactly... look a bit closer though. this action has a special name called
> > "introspection" and is only called once - at the start of the flow :)
>
> Not that it's all that important at this stage, but
> shlould we try to use more popular words for naming the classes and the
> functions.
Well, it's not even in the scratchpad ...I have no problem refactoring
the stuff later :)
> Names that sound familiar and can be associated with corresponding names in
> other popular technologies or design patterns.
> This usually flattens the learning curve and lowers the acceptance barrier.
> So names like bind/populate over introspection, and Validator vs Preceptor.
>
> <snip-things-I-like/>
>
> > > > populate(objectModel, "feedbackform",
> "cocoon-installation/user/*");
> > > >
> > > > List errors = validate(objectModel, "feedbackform",
> > > "cocoon-installation/user/*");
>
> Can you explain a bit more why the 2rd argument is XPath.
> Wouldn't it be more natural to make a call like:
>
> Validator v = new SchematronValidator( "mysche-report.xml");
> ValidationResult vr = v.validate(myJavaBean); // or v.validate(myDomNode);
But how would you specify exactly *what* from the instance you want to
validate... (mind the checkboxes)
> if(vr.errors != null) { ...
> > > > getLogger().debug("there are errors on the page");
> > > > return (page(FIRST));
> > > > }
> > > > else {
> > > > getLogger().debug("all constraints are ok");
> > > > return (page(SECOND));
>
> I like the return idea simliar to Struts (again, I know). An action should
> be a pure controller, no View logic in it.
:)
> > > Oh boy, this is good. Let me think a bit on how to Implement the
> Preceptor
> > > for Schematron.
> > > Do you have one for Relax-NG working?
> >
> > Well, currently it's not conformant yet but - yes, I have...
>
> Maybe if I look at the code, I can come up with one for Schematron.
>
> > > Jeremy, do you think both methods can be merged somehow?
> >
> > Maybe Jeremy is right - they are different approaches and maybe we should
> > give it some time to see the real benefits of both techniques before
> > mixing the concepts... don't know...
>
> Some time is fine. But lets not allow it to take another 12 months before
> someone resurrects the vampire 8>
:)
> > > If for example the BO bean becomes part of a document on the pipeline
> (like
> > > they usually do),
> > > then another XSD or Schematron that validates the bean as part of the
> whole
> > > document may be applied.
> > > In which case both Action and Pipeline validation are needed.
> >
> > not necessarily with my concept...
>
> Your concept handles the input, its the Controller (I assume we all agree
> that MVC is good), where as the BO becomes part of a bigger document during
> the View process, which is outside of the Controller scope. See my example
> with the feedback wizard in the other email. Makes sence?
>
> > > Sorry to repeat myself, but would you mind submitting the feedback
> wizard
> > > requirements which you were thinking about.
> >
> > I did already....
>
> I think I haven't received it yet.
I'll have a look into my postponed folder;)
cheers
--
Torsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
