Okay, M5 is now branched, and if noone has objections on API changes, I will soon commit
2008/11/11, Aristedes Maniatis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On 11/11/2008, at 11:12 PM, Andrey Razumovsky wrote: > > Are you suggesting developers to keep same validation on client & server in >> this case? Well, this means that we prefer first solution - to do nothing >> :-) Actually I can think of situations when special server validation is >> needed - e.g. when it takes long time and will be much longer via ROP. >> > > Absolutely we need to be able to keep them separate. Sometimes. But because > client and server entity classes aren't in the same inheritance tree, it is > really hard to share the 90% of validation code which is identical. > > In our application, we validate on each keystroke, allowing us to > enable/disable the save button and implement nice GUI warnings. Obviously > this needs to be really fast on the client. And so there is more validation > on the server which does not exist on the client. But we've been bitten > sometimes by not keeping the two in sync where they should be. > > > Still, I agree and think we should leave this as 'known limitation'. >> In fact, beside this problem, I've already implemented nested contexts >> and >> hopefully will commit after M5 is released. >> > > Terrific! I can definitely say we'll be able to give it a solid workout > here. > > > Andrey, you might like to add the special limitations to be aware of on > this page and a note about it being available in M6: > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAYDOC/Nested+DataContexts > > I know it is slightly premature, but I'm very excited :-) > > > Ari > > > > --------------------------> > ish > http://www.ish.com.au > Level 1, 30 Wilson Street Newtown 2042 Australia > phone +61 2 9550 5001 fax +61 2 9550 4001 > GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A > > >
