[ http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2281?page=comments#action_38082 ] Michael Jouravlev commented on STR-2281: ----------------------------------------
I am against automatic validation, so for me this enhancement only complicates things, not makes them simpler. I suggest closing this issue with "won't fix", especially considering that no one commented on it for almost two years. > Add 'validation' attribute to ActionMappings to control which validation to > perform > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: STR-2281 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2281 > Project: Struts 1 > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Core > Affects Versions: 1.2.4 > Environment: Operating System: All > Platform: All > Reporter: William Ferguson > Assigned To: Struts Developers > Priority: Minor > > Currently, validation is defined by specifying a true/false value for the > 'validate' attribute for an ActionMapping, and which validation to perform is > defined by either the ActionMapping's (Form) 'name' or 'path' attribute > depending on whether the Form extends from ValidatorActionForm or not. > It seems to me that it would be clearer to introduce a 'validation' attribute > into ActionMapping which defines the Id of the validation (if any) to perform. > This would supercede the 'validate' attribute and removes the responsibility > of > identifying the validation target from the combination of the (Form) 'name' > attribute and the ActionForm inheritance hierarchy. > It allows all the benefits of (currently) using a ValidatorActionForm to > validate based on ActionMapping path, plus those of using Form named mappings, > while also allowing the freedom to mix, match and reuse validations across > ActionMappings. > It should be easy to make this new addition entirely backward compatible. Ie > If > 'validation' attribute is not found then look for current attributes and > follow > the existing validation path, at least for some deprecation period. > Once this refactoring has been achieved, it also opens up the possibility of > further enhancing the existing validation mechanism. Ie Allowing validations > to > contain other validations etc. Though I would first start by simplifying the > validation definitions, which I also find somewhat non-intuitive at times. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
