On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:50 PM, David Zülke wrote:

> Humm. Okay. I can see the point there. Can do.
>
>
> David
>
>
> P.S: I'm beginning to dislike the fact that you win every single one
> of these arguments :>>>>
>

It's because I'm the guy who has to fight the framework in multiple  
projects ;) But there is far less to fight about than with other  
frameworks, which is a good thing.

cheers

felix

>
>
>
>
>
> Am 14.07.2008 um 11:22 schrieb Felix Gilcher:
>
>> My case is not that a validator that does not allow setting specific
>> error messages, I want to validate a file and errors out with a
>> generic message on
>>
>> - too large
>> - too small
>> - PHP Upload error
>> - ...
>>
>> But I want to provide a more specific message on
>>
>> - not provided by the user
>>
>> I can do that currently by setting my generic message to all the
>> specific cases that I do not want to cover and then setting my
>> specific message to the generic 'error'. That seems like the wrong
>> way round to me, 'not there' is a specific case like all other cases,
>> the generic case is 'something went wrong, but we don't know what'.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> felix
>>
>>
>> On Jul 12, 2008, at 1:29 PM, David Zülke wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I think that should be the way forward instead. It seems to me
>>> that introducing a special error name for the most basic and generic
>>> <error> would be like putting the cart before the horse. We should
>>> rather fix the validators that don't have those features yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 11.07.2008 um 19:05 schrieb mugeso:
>>>
>>>> If you mean that,
>>>> I think some validators such as AgaviRegexValidator should be fix.
>>>> They don't specify why the error happens.
>>>>
>>>> David Zülke wrote:
>>>>> The general idea is that validators have specific error message
>>>>> code
>>>>> for actual problems encountered during validation. Examples are
>>>>> "min"
>>>>> and "max" in the string validator. The generic <error> then
>>>>> serves as
>>>>> the "you need to enter this" message.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or did I understand something wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Agavi Dev Mailing List
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.agavi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Agavi Dev Mailing List
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.agavi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Agavi Dev Mailing List
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.agavi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Agavi Dev Mailing List
> [email protected]
> http://lists.agavi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


_______________________________________________
Agavi Dev Mailing List
[email protected]
http://lists.agavi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to