Dear Kamal
Many thanks for your response.
On 9 Jul 2008, at 23:18, Kamal Bhatt wrote:
Jeremy Quinn wrote:
Hi All
As you may know, I am working heavily on the revamp of Dojo on the
client-side of CForms.
In Dojo it is possible to perform quite a lot of validation on form
fields. There is a partial match between the validation
capabilities of CForms and those of Dojo. Several people have
thought in the past that it would be good to have the same
validation occur on both the server and the client.
OTTOMH, the kind of validators we could probably make work in both
places would be :
email, length, mod10, range and regexp (plus maybe javascript,
if we can sort out any context differences)
On re-examination, the list of validators that could have an
equivalent client-side validator auto-generated is probably
shorter ..... as I am not sure ATM how to implement the expressions
possible in some of them ..... eg. assert, length, range etc.
Maybe this is my ignorance speaking, but I don't see any (clean) way
of making client side validation work. How a validation message is
presentated is left up to forms-styling (or whatever you wish to
call it), so you cannot make assumptions about how the validation is
presented.
Yes, this is an issue that needs addressing.
However, there may be an answer ..... both Cocoon and Dojo are i18n
capable, even though they both use different i18n catalogue formats,
Cocoon i18n files could be provided to Dojo via a special
transformation.
Or maybe I am still being naive ; )
The closest solution I can see is if you created a hook function for
all validation and had the hook function propargate the errors that
way.
Could you expand on what you mean by a hook function?
That still sounds rather messy and sounds like a duplication of
effort. Also (if the application is fast), it would lead to some bad
UI if some of the validation is done client side some server side.
Now, if validation were rewritten in such a way that the hook
functions were called for even server side validation errors, it
might provide a rather neat way of getting around some of the
problems that Ajax CForms throw up as well as reducing duplication.
I really wish I had a better understanding of Dojo so I could fix up
some of the issues related to validation and Ajax.
ATM however, no validation information is output by the form
generation process. Datatypes are there (which I can initially use)
but no validation.
So my question is, would someone volunteer to either add the
definition's validation tags to the output or help work out the
cleanest approach to adding it?
thanks
regards Jeremy