On May 29, 4:32 pm, Oliver Lambert <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Marius,
> To try and answer your question, I had to go and look at the Record code in
> more detail. I hadn't recently written the Binder Validator, so it wasn't
> designed to be
> complementary to anything else (however, some of the naming and methodology
> is very
> similar in both sets of code).
>
> What I found.
> 1) MetaRecord.validate === Binder.validate
> 2) Field.validators === BoundObj.validations
> 3) Field.validationFunction === Validator.validate
> 4) List[FieldError] === List[ValidationError]
>
> Can I get rid of Binder Validation and just use Record/Field validation?
> It certainly looks like I should try. However, I might have to add/change
> some of the original Lift code.
> For instance, I might want to add an errorType (with a default, so no code
> is broken) to FieldError.
> I might also want to move/change Field.validationFunction so its a little
> more
> like my Validator,with an errorType and toString (When I print my
> validators, the errorType give a little
> information on what they do, rather than just telling me I have a function -
> I also filter using
> the errorType)
I think we should unify the models. What I particularly like about the
existent validators is that it rlies on function type hence the
flexibility to use anonymous functions or existent ones. SO IMHO it
would be really neat to keep the existent validators per Field and if
you would edd the errorType support would just great.
Oh FWIW I'm not a fan of function names starting with capital letters
such as: def Range(lower: Int, upper: Int, errStr: String) .. but
that's just me.
>
> Other things of interest that I found.
>
> Could a Binder be a MetaRecord? There are definitely some similarities.
> Binder holds a set of
> immutable objects which can be an advantage, but MetaRecord can talk to
> databases which is
> kind of useful at times.
I think we should keep the Meta Record and Record. Please keep in mind
that MetaRecord and Record have NOTHING to do with database, they are
completely separated per design so that Records can be also used
outside of a RDBMS scope. For DB we have DBMetaRecord and DBRecord
which are not fully implemented yet.
>
> Could a BoundObj be a Field. Same distinction as above. A BoundObj[T] may
> hold a reference to a string value
> that is completely invalid. I'm not sure I see this in Field.
IMHO I would just add the features that your code has and current code
does not (such as error type) and put them in the MetaRecord/Record
(or wherever they belong) and have a single coherent model. Please
also take a deeper look on the existent code, in MetaRecord, Record,
Fields implementations Not DB Fields) and see what goodies can be
added from your new code.
And integrating client side validations (as Dave suggested) in the
same model would be really cool.
>
> cheers
> Oliver
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:22 PM, marius d. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
