To take what John is proposing to heart, the design goal of commons-validator to be easily embedded into a container is all the more important, if one wants to integrate validation with a container-specified form definition. In the case of Struts, one single form definition might create a DynaActionForm and the commons-validator configuration to validate the fields.
Don
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Don,
(perhaps abit OT) do you know this article? http://weblogs.java.net/pub/wlg/618
and the JSR 94 (Java Rule Engine) http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=94
perhaps you will find something usefull.
Cheers, Matze
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 10:37 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: [validator] Why doesn't commons-validator include functional validators?
After looking through the different validator usages - Struts, Spring, and the unit tests - I'm a bit confused why commons-validator doesn't ship with functional validators that can be used directly and not hidden by some adapter. commons-validator contains validator classes, yes, but you still need to create a validator adapter class that accepts at least the bean and the Field object to interact with the validator. Furthermore, this adapter class (Struts and Spring both call it CheckFields) contains framework specific references, usually dealing with their errors system.
The problem with this approach is it requires huge levels of duplication as each container needs to write their own adapter and error creation code. I'm particularly confused because it seems the solution already exists within commons-validator - ValidationResult(s). I would think a better approach would be for commons-validator to provide adapters for every validator to extract the field information from Field and pass it along to the actual validator. The process of creating messages should be left to the class that called validator.validate() to process ValidationResults and handle the errors in a container-specific way. This way, new containers that want to use commons-validator don't have to write their own monolithic adapter class but can use validators as they are. If commons-validator wants to separate a validator into a commons-validator adapter class and a actual validation class, that is fine, but there really isn't any need for that adapter to depend on a container.
If my premise is sound and the solution agreeable, I would be willing to do the leg work of writing container-independent adapters for each of the validators.
Don
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
