I think this is a desirable change in terms of making form beans more IDE friendly. Having a class-level identifying annotation makes it easier to associate a proper icon with file in the IDE, as well as add relevant functionality to context menus and even drive suggestions for additional annotations that could apply to the form bean.
Many of the other beehive file types have class-level annotations that also happen to serve well as a file type identifier. IMO, it'd be great to have this convention for form beans as well. -Troy -----Original Message----- From: Carlin Rogers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:30 PM To: Beehive Developers Subject: Re: adding NetUI annotation processing for an external form bean class in check() phase I have some local changes for the standalone checker... a new FormBeanAnnotationProcessorFactory that hooks up the FormBeanCoreAnnotationProcessor and added an entry in the META-INF/services/com.sun.mirror.apt.AnnotationProcessorFactory for the factory. Initial tests seem to be OK. I also have my change that will check an external form bean from within FlowControllerChecker, only when there is *no* @FormBean. I have not added a warning message to users that they should always have a @FormBean annotation when using any of the @ValidatableProperty annotations in a form bean. I was concerned that there is already a precedent for just using the @FormBean to define a message bundle. See the NetUI tutorial and the note about using @FormBean... http://beehive.apache.org/docs/1.0.1/netui/tutorial.html#validation Does anyone feel strongly that we should change the behavior and always expect @FormBean annotation when using any of the @ValidatableProperty annotations? If so, I will add the warning and change the tutorial. Kind regards, Carlin On 8/15/06, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That makes sense to me -- basically we'd be saying that we require a > top-level annotation if you want to use method- or field-level > annotations. > > You can also just go with your original suggestion, but I think that in > that case you could end up with multiple errors for a single class. > > Rich > > Carlin Rogers wrote: > > Rich, > > > > I'll take a look at this more closely and make sure I follow as I'm > > not yet > > sure how that impacts the use of the @ValidatableBean annotation > > (which is > > used with the validatableBeans attribute of the Controller annot). I > > guess > > either @ValidatableBean or @FormBean would be required for > > @ValidatableProperty? > > > > Thanks, > > Carlin > > > > On 8/15/06, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Carlin, > >> > >> Makes sense -- I'd forgotten that we don't require the annotation. > >> Seems like we're being too lax in this case -- I actually think that it > >> would be best to require the @FormBean annotation when using any of the > >> @ValidatableProperty annotations. We don't want to require @FormBean > >> just to use an external bean, but I don't see the harm in requiring it > >> when any of the other annotations are used inside the bean. That way, > >> we can preserve the idea of a standalone checker. > >> > >> For back-compat, you could run a checker on any external form bean from > >> within PageFlowChecker (as you suggested), but only when there is *no* > >> @FormBean. If you encounter any @ValidatableProperty annotations in > >> that case, you could deprecation-warn that @FormBean should be used. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Rich > >> > >> Carlin Rogers wrote: > >> > Rich, > >> > > >> > I have a question about the suggestion to create and use the FBAPF. > It > >> > seems > >> > that this would work only in the case that the standalone includes > >> the @ > >> > Jpf.FormBean annotation. However, users can define validation rules > >> > without > >> > @Jpf.FormBean and just use @Jpf.ValidatableProperty. The FormBean > >> > allows the > >> > class to define its own message bundle for validation errors, but > it's > >> > just > >> > an option. > >> > > >> > We need to make sure that we check the ValidatableProperty before > >> > going to > >> > generate() to provide AP error information. The ValidatableProperty > >> > can be > >> > on a method (of a bean) and an annotation type (listed in the @ > >> > Jpf.Controller or @Jpf.Action). Since it's not just associated to a > >> type, > >> > would we still be able to do something like you suggested and create > >> > an AP > >> > factory for ValidatableProperty? Maybe I'm missing something though > >> with > >> > what you were suggesting. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Carlin > >> > > >> > On 8/14/06, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hey Carlin, > >> >> > >> >> I think what might be better would be to make a > >> >> FormBeanAnnotationProcessorFactory in > >> >> compiler-apt/org/apache/beehive/netui/compiler/apt, and make it > >> >> responsible for the form bean annotation (you'd need to remove that > >> >> annotation from the list of supported annotations in > >> >> PageFlowAnnotationProcessorFactory). FBAPF could then simply > >> return a > >> >> FormBeanCoreAnnotationProcessorFactory -- which already exists -- in > >> its > >> >> getCoreProcessorFor(). I honestly cannot remember why I didn't do > >> that > >> >> -- sorry. > >> >> > >> >> If it turns out that this doesn't work for some reason, you could > >> also > >> >> roll the functionality from FormBeanCoreAnnotationProcessor into > >> >> PageFlowCoreAnnotationProcessor (and to delete the former). > >> >> > >> >> In either case, you end up with standalone checking form bean > >> classes, > >> >> which is nicer because you don't have to worry about multiple > >> >> PageFlowCheckers triggering checking on the same external form bean > >> >> class, and it's just cleaner to have it be standalone. > >> >> > >> >> All that said, I didn't wire it up in the first place, so if you run > >> >> into any difficulties let me know -- it's possible there's something > >> I'm > >> >> missing here. > >> >> > >> >> Rich > >> >> > >> >> Carlin Rogers wrote: > >> >> > I'm taking a look at BEEHIVE-1127 and wanted to share some > thoughts > >> >> about > >> >> > ensuring the annotation processing of validatable bean properties > >> >> > declared > >> >> > in an external form bean class during the check() phase. > >> >> > > >> >> > The current implementation for processing of the Controller > >> >> > annotations does > >> >> > not process external form bean during the check() phase of the > >> >> > TwoPhaseCoreAnnotationProcessor. During the Controller annotation > >> >> > processing, FlowControllerChecker.onCheck() creates the > >> >> > FormBeanChecker and > >> >> > then during the onCheckInternal() uses it to check > >> ValidatableProperty > >> >> > annotations on inner classes only. > >> >> > > >> >> > I'd like to modify FlowControllerChecker.checkMethod() (for action > >> >> > grammar > >> >> > checking) to also look at the parameter of an action and check for > >> >> > validation rules. The change would only use the FormBeanChecker on > >> the > >> >> > parameter class if it is a ClassDeclaration without a declaring > >> type > >> >> > (so we > >> >> > don't re-check an inner class). Does this sound right? Anyone have > >> >> some > >> >> > additional thoughts? > >> >> > > >> >> > Rich, do you have some input on this AP change? > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks, > >> >> > Carlin > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________________________________ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
