[Lift] Re: Validations, Server side controls etc
Kind of funny ... we were writing almost in parallel :)
On Sep 21, 9:30 pm, Tim Perrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WOW! Marius this is so fricking sweet. well done, awesome stuff
indeed!
Functionally, I think this would serve as an excellent place to start
for providing validation in lift right?
Well it's just an idea that I think it would worth to explore.
Perhaps by providing
convenience methods for common validations rather than needing to code
it explicitally.
That would be sweet ! ... anything particular in mind? ... things like
email, phone number validation etc?
What other stuff do you think its missing? I have only had a quick
play with your same, but it looks to be really great :)
Yes of course ... implement other form fields ALL form input types +
what you very well suggested : common validations for say most
frequently used validations. Shoul also work for Ajax/json forms since
notices work just fine in such situations just a bit more noodling,
testing etc.
Cheers
Tim
On Sep 21, 11:58 am, Marius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok ...
I just uploaded an example
applicationhttp://groups.google.com/group/liftweb/web/liftform.tar.gz
At the first glance it may look complicated but it's really not. For
instance we have this snippet class
class Form {
object who extends RequestVar(0)
object sec extends RequestVar(-1)
val form: LiftForm = new LiftForm(TextField({(v: Int) =
println(who is + v); who(v toString)}, FieldType.INT)
({case v if v 10 = },
ValidationMessage(who_msg, {
case v = who(v);
Text(* The value must be a number greater then 10.)
})),
TextField({(v: Float) =
println(sec is + v); sec(v toString)}, FieldType.FLOAT)
({case v if v = 0.7f = },
ValidationMessage(sec_msg, {
case v = sec(v);
Text(* The value must be a number smaller then 0.7.)
}))
)
def validate(html: Group) : NodeSeq = {
bind(hello, html,
whoField - form.getFields(0).toHtml(who) % (size - 30)
% (id - whoField),
secField - form.getFields(1).toHtml(sec) % (size -
30) % (id - secField),
submit - submit(Submit, {println(IN SUBMIT);
S.notice(FORM IS VALID + form.passedValidation); })
)
}
We have a LiftForm reference that contains two FormField-s in
particular case 2 TextField's
TextField({(v: Int) = println(who is + v); who(v toString)},
FieldType.INT)
({case v if v 10 = },
ValidationMessage(who_msg, {
case v = who(v);
Text(* The value must be a number greater then 10.)
}))
TextField here is the companion module of the TextField class. It
takes:
1. The function that is called for this field when the form is
submitted and validation passed: {(v: Int) = println(who is + v);
who(v toString)}
2. The field type. This FieldType is an enum that knows how to convert
from the request string to a particular type.
3. A tuple holding:
3.1 The actual validation predicate expressed as a PartialFunction
3.2. The ValidationMessage which holds the id of the notice element
(basically where we want the error validation message to appear) and a
function that receives the original request string and returns a Node
which impersonates the actual error message
Thoughts are more then welcomed !
P.S.
Currently for exemplification only TextField is implemented but we can
easily extend it to all possible form fields.
Br's,
Marius
On Sep 21, 1:28 pm, Marius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually I just Implemented a small lift app that does typesafe form
validation on server side.
I'll attach it in a bit ... it's just an idea
Br's,
Marius
On Sep 21, 1:08 pm, Tim Perrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds good Marius - project wise though we need to address this IMHO;
as we pick up more users of lift people will want this functionality
for sure.
I guess we really need to decide at what level we want to apply
validation - Im not sure that having it tightly coupled to the
persistence tier (a la rails) is a great idea. Just had a quick look
at OVal i think a generic approach like that would be good as then
your just dealing with a single methodology to spec validation
criterion on any object.
Also, conceptually, a server side representation of a form seems to be
a different notion to the bind() style we have with snippets. Im not
sure how we could get it to work in a clean way - would it be an
abstraction
[Lift] Re: Validations, Server side controls etc
Great minds Marius - you sent your mail at 19:29, and mine at 19:30! What do you think on my comments above? Cheers, Tim On 21 Sep 2008, at 19:29, Marius wrote: Guys please try running the application above, take a look on the code and have feedback. Is it a sufficient paradigm (from server side validation perspective), is it a simple enough approach from your perspective? ... of course it is just a draft. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Validations, Server side controls etc
I thought I replied :) On Sep 21, 9:37 pm, Tim Perrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great minds Marius - you sent your mail at 19:29, and mine at 19:30! What do you think on my comments above? Cheers, Tim On 21 Sep 2008, at 19:29, Marius wrote: Guys please try running the application above, take a look on the code and have feedback. Is it a sufficient paradigm (from server side validation perspective), is it a simple enough approach from your perspective? ... of course it is just a draft. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Validations, Server side controls etc
That would be sweet ! ... anything particular in mind? ... things like email, phone number validation etc? Totally - nothing crazy to begin with, perhaps with some way of passing a regex or whatever to ward off boiler plate code thats repeated by lift users. Conceptually, I think the ones given by http://validatable.rubyforge.org/ are quite nice. Like I said, nothing crazy, but very functional... e.g. validates_format_of Yes of course ... implement other form fields ALL form input types + what you very well suggested : common validations for say most frequently used validations. Shoul also work for Ajax/json forms since notices work just fine in such situations just a bit more noodling, testing etc. Exactly - this is very nice and something that IMO, lift has really been missing. Do you mind if I take your example and extend it and stick it into lift core? Actually thats a good point where within the lift code base would this best sit? Probably net.liftweb.util maybe? Cheers Tim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Validations, Server side controls etc
On Sep 21, 9:48 pm, Tim Perrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be sweet ! ... anything particular in mind? ... things like email, phone number validation etc? Totally - nothing crazy to begin with, perhaps with some way of passing a regex or whatever to ward off boiler plate code thats repeated by lift users. Conceptually, I think the ones given byhttp://validatable.rubyforge.org/are quite nice. Like I said, nothing crazy, but very functional... e.g. validates_format_of Yes of course ... implement other form fields ALL form input types + what you very well suggested : common validations for say most frequently used validations. Shoul also work for Ajax/json forms since notices work just fine in such situations just a bit more noodling, testing etc. Exactly - this is very nice and something that IMO, lift has really been missing. Do you mind if I take your example and extend it and stick it into lift core? Actually thats a good point where within the lift code base would this best sit? Probably net.liftweb.util maybe? Could you create a different git branch ? ... I'd rather wait until it is very close to completion (from the framework perspective at least) and then commit it into master branch. I welcome you to continue with implementation in this branch and I will provide feedback (with either comments and code). When we're done with it we present to the community an example application and then put it in the master branch after we get the lift committers consensus and hopefully other people's fedback. I think net.liftweb.http.form package sounds reasonable for this framework. Cheers Tim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Validations, Server side controls etc
Sorry I should have been clearer... Of course, I wouldnt work it straight into master :-) I'll make a branch or fork then we'll go from there Cheers Marius, this is great work Tim On Sep 21, 7:57 pm, Marius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 21, 9:48 pm, Tim Perrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be sweet ! ... anything particular in mind? ... things like email, phone number validation etc? Totally - nothing crazy to begin with, perhaps with some way of passing a regex or whatever to ward off boiler plate code thats repeated by lift users. Conceptually, I think the ones given byhttp://validatable.rubyforge.org/arequite nice. Like I said, nothing crazy, but very functional... e.g. validates_format_of Yes of course ... implement other form fields ALL form input types + what you very well suggested : common validations for say most frequently used validations. Shoul also work for Ajax/json forms since notices work just fine in such situations just a bit more noodling, testing etc. Exactly - this is very nice and something that IMO, lift has really been missing. Do you mind if I take your example and extend it and stick it into lift core? Actually thats a good point where within the lift code base would this best sit? Probably net.liftweb.util maybe? Could you create a different git branch ? ... I'd rather wait until it is very close to completion (from the framework perspective at least) and then commit it into master branch. I welcome you to continue with implementation in this branch and I will provide feedback (with either comments and code). When we're done with it we present to the community an example application and then put it in the master branch after we get the lift committers consensus and hopefully other people's fedback. I think net.liftweb.http.form package sounds reasonable for this framework. Cheers Tim --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Validations, Server side controls etc
Tim Perrett wrote: IMHO the form validation framework should work independently from any persistence related stuff ... +1 Right. The Record/Field stuff is not about persistence... it's about richer representation of data than String/Int/Long/Date. It's about the stuff that surrounds the near-bit-level representation of the data. See http://blog.lostlake.org/index.php?/archives/19-Keeping-the-meaning-with-the-bytes.html Validation is part of the over-all mix. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
