Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Marc Portier wrote:
<snip/>
I see two solutions for this :
- the messy one (IMO) : add some non-visual fields in the form to hold the necessary data,
- add a get/setApplicationData() on FormContext so that widgets can use it during form.process() if the form has an associated binding.
surely I prefer the second.
and guess what my mantra-remark is: "it isn't really tied to binding" :-)
what I mean is that business-specific-validation that requires the ApplicationData present could be driven completely from the flow (without it making use of the declarative data-mapping offered by the current binding)
in fact we might consider naming this the ValidationContextBean rather then ApplicationData?
Agree. There's a great probability that ValidationData (why should it be a bean?) will often be the same as ApplicationData, but it formally doesn't need to. Moreover, there are certainly many uses cases where ValidationData is required but the form has no binding.
yep,
+1 on dropping -Bean suffix (everything in Java is a bean if you want it to. I was thinking about validation rules based on jxpath expressions of course ;-))
-0 on leaving -Context in favor of -Data:
I agree that most of the time it will be a quite passive object providing information elements where the custom validation-rules can hook into...
However I wouldn't mind if this ValidationContext can be called by these custom validation-rules to do some active stuff. This might very well make the design of these custom thingys a bit easier
So I'ld like the name to be more neutral regarding its passive/active position, this makes -Context a better candidate then -Data IMHO, but I'm open to suggestions...
<snip/>
Actually, if application data is added to FormContext, it can be propagated in the ValidationRule's ExpressionContext (e.g. as an "_applicationData_" variable). There will be then no difference between a form-only-validation and a business-domain-validation. We just have ValidationRules that use the application data variable and others that don't.
What do you think ?
I think it makes perfect sense, and even more important it shows we're on the same track here (also enthousiasm-wise :-))
;-)
-marc= (looking forward to your conclusions / proposal - wiki page)
That's today's todo, but these important and stimulating discussions eat up all most of my time. But we're near to the convergence point !
yep, we're getting there:
it is reflected by the ratio of the 'yep' word over the others (thank god the 'yep' word is payed accordingly ;-) )
regards, -marc= -- Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0116284/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
