I see ... still the question remains. What are we going to do with two validators? I'd like to understand the principles of your addition (... I know I should have dig into the code but I don't have much time now).
I'd like to understand as I said previously if we have redundant validators or complementary functionality so that people to not get confused. I'm not trying at all to be negative or anything, just trying to understand the value added. Br's, Marius On May 29, 11:01 am, Oliver Lambert <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm aware of S.error and my ValidationError uses it when I'm ready to show > errors. I've briefly looked at the ValidationFunction and the thing I might > stumble on is the errorType which I rely on. > > I may be able to refactor the code to use List[FieldError] as I don't think > I rely on errorType at this point. > > I'll have a go at modifying the Binder code. > > cheers > Oliver > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Marius <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Oliver, > > > I very briefly looked on your code and I saw that you have your own > > validator there. How would that play with the existent validattors > > that Record has where each field has a list of : > > > type ValidationFunction = MyType => Box[Node] > > > Note that current MetaRecord's validator after evaluating the > > validators for each field it yields a List[FieldError] which can be > > easily naturally used with S.error function to show the error messages > > etc. > > > Is there a redundancy or complementary functionality? > > > Br's, > > Marius --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
