Adam Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> I was merely adopting the three optional configuration settings that are
> used in UrlValidator already. I think your suggestion of a
> comma-delimited list of schemas sounds easiest, plus it has precedents
> in other config parameter settings, e.g. list of roles in an action
> mapping.
The other suggestion ("var" starting with "scheme") is also straight
forward -
there is a getVars() method in Field which returns a Map of all the vars, so
it would be easy to iterate over them picking out those that start with
"scheme".
I'm easy going on which solution to choose - the important thing is to get
something concrete that implements you configuration suggestion.
> Re an 'all' option, wouldn't it be easier if no schemas are mentioned or
> the parameter is absent, then all are allowed?
FieldChecks currently uses the UrlValidator defaults ("http", "https" and
"ftp") which
I think should be the allowed schemes if none are mentioned.
> Also on the instantiation front, you mean that in FieldChecks, if there
> are any parameters for validateUrl set, then instantiate a new
> UrlValidator, otherwise use the GenericValidator.isUrl()?
Yes.
I was thinking of openning a bugzilla and sticking a patch up - but I don't
want
to steal your thunder if you'd rather do it.
Niall
>
> Adam
>
> On 04/01/2004 10:08 PM Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > Adam Hardy suggested "allow2slashes", "nofragments" and
"allowallschemes"
> > being either true/false
> >
> > I think rather than having "allowallschemes", have a "schemes" parameter
> > which can be either "all" (which sets the allow all schemes option) or a
> > comma delimited list of valid schemes.
> >
> > Alternatively you could have Adam's suggestion plus any <var> that
starts
> > with "scheme" is taken to build an array of schemes. Something like:
> >
> > <field property="someUrl" depends="myUrlValidator">
> > <var><var-name>allow2slashes</var-name>
> > <var-value>true</var-value>
> > </var>
> > <var><var-name>nofragments</var-name>
> > <var-value>true</var-value>
> > </var>
> > <var><var-name>allowallschemes</var-name>
> > <var-value>false</var-value>
> > </var>
> > <var><var-name>scheme1</var-name>
> > <var-value>http</var-value>
> > </var>
> > <var><var-name>scheme2</var-name>
> > <var-value>ftp</var-value>
> > </var>
> > <var><var-name>scheme3</var-name>
> > <var-value>telnet</var-value>
> > </var>
> > </field>
> >
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: UrlValidator() takes options - but how?
> >
> >
> >
> >>--- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Sorry this went to the wrong list, but anyway....
> >>>
> >>>Looking at CVS there is a validateUrl() method in the Struts
FieldChecks
> >>>class (added in version 1.15) - problem is it uses commons
> >>>GenericValidator
> >>>which has a static instance.
> >>>
> >>>What do you think about changing this to instantiate a UrlValidator if
> >>>any
> >>>configuration parameters have been enetered in validation.xml,
otherwise
> >>>use
> >>>the GenericValidator?
> >>
> >>Sounds ok to me but we need to define the variable names the method
> >>recognizes and will use in UrlValidator configuration.
> >>
> >>David
>
> --
> struts 1.2 + tomcat 5.0.19 + java 1.4.2
> Linux 2.4.20 Debian
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
