Switching to commons-validator because of its javascript code only? Would it be imprudent just grab the js code without adding commons-validator as a dependency? Last time I checked seemed as if commons-validator was kind of dormant. Still, seems like it is the lowest resistance path to follow.
Please let me know if I can provide you any assistance for this improvement. 2008/9/16 Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Any more comments? > > The question has come up a few times on the user list in the last week or > two. My proposal is an incremental improvement (if tiny); if we switch to > commons-validator at least their JavaScript code could be re-used. > > Dave > > --- On Wed, 9/10/08, Dave Newton wrote: >> --- On Tue, 9/9/08, Jeromy Evans wrote: >> > I don't use S2's client-side validation myself >> as its too fragile, and >> > this improvement won't help that. (fragile as in >> its hardcoded to match >> > a theme's tag structure and breaks if a tag is >> out-of-place). >> >> I was also going to add some ids here and there, mostly for >> styling purposes, but the label-finding code would also be >> much-simplified and a tad more resilient. >> >> But the primary motivation was to allow a way of adding >> more client-side validations w/o a major undertaking. I know >> it's kinda hacky. >> >> Dave >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
