Re: My dilema: Much improved version of requiredif ready, 1.1 or 1.2?
Just food for thought: How about using the OGNL expression language (www.ognl.org) rather than writing your own parser? WebWork, Tapestry, and certainly others, are using OGNL. (and the creator of it is a good friend of mine!) Erik On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 12:56 AM, James Turner wrote: As I'm sure we've all noticed, the requiredif validation, although seeming to be very popular, is a bear for first time users to comprehend. With that in mind, I've just finished a new validation (which I'm calling requiredwhen to avoid confusion), which is much simpler. Here's a sample rule: field property=firstName indexedListProperty=dependents depends=requiredwhen arg0 key=dependentlistForm.firstName.label/ var var-nametest/var-name var-value(dependents[].lastName != null)/var-value /var /field As you can see, you can now put any arbitrary booolean expression as the test for required. For example: ((dependents[].lastName == James) and (options[1] == true)) If the parser sees [], it replaces it with the indexed property value of the target field. Here's the dilema. I think it's a lot better than requiredif, will generate a lot less questions on struts-users, and let people do the general types of checking they seem to want to do. Also, since it's just another rule being added to the Validation set, it shouldn't be able to destabilize anything else in the release. However, since it is a new feature, I hesitate to add it to 1.1 because we're in freeze. What do other people think? Also, I used JavaCC to generate the parser, there's should never be a need to regenerate the java files from the jtt source, but should someone want to do it, they'd need to download JavaCC. Will this be a problem? James New Gig! | | | | | | | | \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ V V V V V V V V Director of Software Development Benefit Systems, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 603-216-1620 Fax: 317-573-2016 - 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]
RE: My dilema: Much improved version of requiredif ready, 1.1 or 1.2?
James, I haven't even been able to figure out requiredif! I think your feature is great but we need to show some discipline and maintain the 1.1 freeze. IMO, this should be a definite addition for 1.2. I have no idea about the issues with JavaCC. Does it mean that there's no source file, just a generated class file? Dave From: James Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Struts Developers List' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: My dilema: Much improved version of requiredif ready, 1.1 or 1.2? Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 01:42:25 -0500 Actually, I realized just after I sent this that if I took the required part out and called it validwhen instead, you end up with a true general purpose validation tool! So that's the one I'm proposing. Basically, if you had a field lastName that was required if firstName was filled in, you say: ((lastName != null) or (firstName == null)) I.e., the field is valid if it isn't null, or the firstName field is null. This means you can generate an error on a field based solely on the values of other fields. James - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: My dilema: Much improved version of requiredif ready, 1.1 or 1.2?
James, I haven't even been able to figure out requiredif! I think your feature is great but we need to show some discipline and maintain the 1.1 freeze. IMO, this should be a definite addition for 1.2. I can live with that, I can stick it in the nightly build after we finally ship this puppy. I have no idea about the issues with JavaCC. Does it mean that there's no source file, just a generated class file? It generates Java files from a .jtt grammer description file (much like yacc/bison works). I can check in both the .jtt file and the generated java files. James - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My dilema: Much improved version of requiredif ready, 1.1 or 1.2?
As I'm sure we've all noticed, the requiredif validation, although seeming to be very popular, is a bear for first time users to comprehend. With that in mind, I've just finished a new validation (which I'm calling requiredwhen to avoid confusion), which is much simpler. Here's a sample rule: field property=firstName indexedListProperty=dependents depends=requiredwhen arg0 key=dependentlistForm.firstName.label/ var var-nametest/var-name var-value(dependents[].lastName != null)/var-value /var /field As you can see, you can now put any arbitrary booolean expression as the test for required. For example: ((dependents[].lastName == James) and (options[1] == true)) If the parser sees [], it replaces it with the indexed property value of the target field. Here's the dilema. I think it's a lot better than requiredif, will generate a lot less questions on struts-users, and let people do the general types of checking they seem to want to do. Also, since it's just another rule being added to the Validation set, it shouldn't be able to destabilize anything else in the release. However, since it is a new feature, I hesitate to add it to 1.1 because we're in freeze. What do other people think? Also, I used JavaCC to generate the parser, there's should never be a need to regenerate the java files from the jtt source, but should someone want to do it, they'd need to download JavaCC. Will this be a problem? James New Gig! | | | | | | | | \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ V V V V V V V V Director of Software Development Benefit Systems, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 603-216-1620 Fax: 317-573-2016 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: My dilema: Much improved version of requiredif ready, 1.1 or 1.2?
Actually, I realized just after I sent this that if I took the required part out and called it validwhen instead, you end up with a true general purpose validation tool! So that's the one I'm proposing. Basically, if you had a field lastName that was required if firstName was filled in, you say: ((lastName != null) or (firstName == null)) I.e., the field is valid if it isn't null, or the firstName field is null. This means you can generate an error on a field based solely on the values of other fields. James - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
