I would agree to this. Unless the missions of Validator and Mapper are completely orthogonal, could we pursue this route?
Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: David Winterfeldt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:44 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: [Vote] Mapper framework in sandbox (was RE: > Commons Validator Packaging/Content) > > > I'm +1 on the mapper in commons. A > validation/transformation package would be very useful > to people. I haven't used it, but I looked at it a > little last night. There is some overlapping > functionality between the Validator and the Mapper, > but the Validator seems like it can do some things > that the Mapper can't (besides transformations). I > was wondering though if we couldn't make a shared base > of validation/transformation routines. E-mail > validation, credit cards, dates, etc. Then both > projects would benefit from any contributions and/or > bug fixes. > > David > > --- Rey Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry, I made a mistake in listing the previous > > votes. Below is the > > correction (switch a and b). > > > > a: mapper in commons sandbox > > b: mapper in commons > > > > Ted is +1 on b. > > Jason is +1 on b. > > Jeff is +1 on a, but that was before the suggestion > > of putting the mapper in > > the commons directly. Jeff, could you please clarify > > your vote in terms of > > option a or b? Thanks. > > > > Fr. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rey Francois [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 17 January 2002 09:45 > > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > > Subject: RE: [Vote] Mapper framework in sandbox (was > > RE: Commons > > Validator Packaging/Content) > > > > > > I agree with this list of initial committers. > > Since it is proposed as a commons as well, I suggest > > to qualify your votes > > as follows: > > > > a: mapper in commons sandbox > > b: mapper in commons > > > > Ted is +1 on a. > > Jason is +1 on a. > > Jeff is +1 on b, but that was before the suggestion > > of putting the mapper in > > the commons directly. Jeff, could you please clarify > > your vote in terms of > > option a or b? Thanks. > > > > I of course plan to "standardize" the build process > > and align with the > > Jakarta template, repackage, and test this before > > submission. > > > > Fr. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 16 January 2002 19:34 > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: RE: [Vote] Mapper framework in sandbox (was > > RE: Commons > > Validator Packaging/Content) > > > > > > So the initial set of comitters needs to be updated > > to be: > > > > Rey? > > Ted? > > Dave? > > Craig? > > > > Just wondering, as that piece of the proposal is not > > here. > > > > Scott > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:48 AM > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > Subject: Re: [Vote] Mapper framework in sandbox > > (was RE: > > > Commons Validator Packaging/Content) > > > > > > > > > +1 as a Commons package. > > > > > > Rey's a longtime contributor to the Struts lists, > > and his > > > Mapping framework is often mentioned by the Struts > > > > > developers. Rey's also made some important > > contributions to > > > the Digester package. As he mentioned elsewhere, > > this package > > > complementary to the Commons Validator, and I > > believe some > > > people use both in the same application. > > > > > > I think both the Mapping framework and Rey himself > > would both > > > be worthy denizens of the Commons. > > > > > > But, I don't believe it needs to go into the > > sandbox first. > > > The package has been "out there" and available for > > download > > > with full source for some time, and there is a > > developer > > > community already using it. > > > > > > -Ted. > > > > > > > > > Rey Francois wrote: > > > > > > > > I've sent this post yesterday but I'm pretty > > sure it will > > > quickly fade > > > > under the abyss of all the posts on this list. > > So I post my > > > proposal > > > > again, using a more appropriate title, and using > > the recommended > > > > format: > > > > > > > > Proposal for a mapper framework > > > > > > > > (0) rationale > > > > > > > > In many application environments validation > > needs to be > > > performed on > > > > data fields, data is converted from one form to > > another, > > > and is being > > > > transferred from one object to another. A > > typical example > > > is found in > > > > graphical user interfaces that validate user > > input, convert it to a > > > > proper form, and send it to a server application > > for processing. In > > > > the case of HTML front-ends, the HTTP protocol > > forces user > > > input to be > > > > sent as text data to the server where the > > validation and conversion > > > > has to be performed. > > > > > > > > Most of the time implementing such validation > > and > > > conversion requires > > > > lots of custom code: get the data element, > > validate it, convert it, > > > > and put the result into another object. In a > > small > > > application, this > > > > may not be an issue. However in medium to large > > > applications with many > > > > different data elements, such coding becomes a > > tedious and > > > error-prone > > > > task. > > > > > > > > In such situation developers tend to achieve > > some form of reuse in > > > > order to reduce the menial work. At the lowest > > level is the > > > > cut'n'paste approach. A better approach is the > > definition of some > > > > high-level abstraction which encapsulate > > reusable logic: validation > > > > and conversion classes are typical abstractions > > found in > > > most systems. > > > > > > > > However, even with validation and conversion > > logic being reusable, > > > > some custom coding is still required in order to > > attach those > > > > validations and conversions to the data > > elements. To avoid > > > completely > > > > the custom code, an even higher level of > > abstraction is needed in > > > > order to model such bindings. The mapper > > framework > > > implemented in this > > > > package provides such high-level abstractions, > > making the > > > validation, > > > > conversion, and transfer of data a process > > driven by a > > > configuration > > > > file. > > > > > > > > Although the central concept in this framework > > is the one > > > of a mapper, > > > > the framework is flexible enough to be used only > > for > > > validating fields > > > > of an object, or converting an object into > > another one, or simply > > > > copying fields from one object to another. It is > > also > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! > http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
