IL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework
>
>
> +1 for having the validations action-based! Since maybe a
> class handles
> different actions (read methods) it will need to have
> different set of
> validation rules for each action.
>
> Ar
+1 for having the validations action-based! Since maybe a class handles
different actions (read methods) it will need to have different set of
validation rules for each action.
Armond
Fred Lamuette wrote:
It seems that the validation framework applies only to the action
properties.
In this cas
In this case, you have to throw an exception for a user-defined converter?
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
Jason Carreira
Envoye : lundi 29 septembre 2003 20:32
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework de
It's really a problem, i cant understand anybody else is requesting that !!
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
Adam Fleming
Envoye : lundi 29 septembre 2003 18:49
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework de
tember 29, 2003 12:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This is a problem I am having trouble with too (as I am sure many
> others). How can you get the original input if the field you are
> validating is
ginal Message-
> From: Fred Lamuette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 2:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
>
>
> Ok, you say "Type conversion handle this". But when will be
>
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
Jason Carreira
Envoye : samedi 27 septembre 2003 14:19
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
You thought what I said was overcomplicated? This sounds WAY too
complicated... Type conversion handles this...
-Original Message--
Jason Carreira
Envoye : samedi 27 septembre 2003 14:19
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
You thought what I said was overcomplicated? This sounds WAY too
complicated... Type conversion handles this...
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred La
ne-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> la part de Jason Carreira Envoye : vendredi 26 septembre 2003
> 16:54 A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet : RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Lamuette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> My question : how can i do to see the message "Your text "Foo
> Bar" could not be parsed as a date", w
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Lamuette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> My question : how can i do to see the message "Your text "Foo
> Bar" could not be parsed as a date", what can i do in my
> dateconverter to add a FieldError
>
> Cheers.
> Richard.
Short answer: You can't
Lon
Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
Jason Carreira
Envoye : jeudi 25 septembre 2003 20:40
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
> -Original Message-----
> From: Fred Lamuette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Lamuette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 1:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
>
>
> You have a model class in your action to populate, one
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Lamuette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:23 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Lamuette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:23 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
>
>
> That was my idea in one of my previous post, but finally
PROTECTED] la part de
Jason Carreira
Envoye : jeudi 25 septembre 2003 04:28
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
> -Original Message-
> From: Tracy Snell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:17 PM
> To: [
> -Original Message-
> From: Tracy Snell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework details
>
>
> On 9/24/03 8:45 PM, "Jason Carreira"
> <[
On 9/24/03 8:45 PM, "Jason Carreira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The type conversion framework will handle this part... It sounds like we
> (Patrick and I) need to get together on making these work together
> better and make it so the type conversion can provide good messages.
Wouldn't having t
The type conversion framework will handle this part... It sounds like we
(Patrick and I) need to get together on making these work together
better and make it so the type conversion can provide good messages.
> -Original Message-
> From: Adam Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wedn
I got it, but haven't had time to look yet. I'll take a look tonight.
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Mota [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 10:23 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework dou
MAIL
PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc:
ceforge.net Subject: RE:
[OS-webwork] Validation
the getter and the param type in the setter are the
same, or the Java introspector code can get confused.
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Mota [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:08 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] V
Hi,
Continuing my doubts about this topic ...
I'm debugging my form to see WHY even if I post some content at my validated fields
(using the XWork
validation framework and the interceptor) I get error messages.
The field types are corret at the validation.xml file (ranges and so on) ... names
or it or add it to this one. In general, I was
> > planning
> > > on doing validations using the validation framework and
> > anything else
> > > would be done in the execute() method. What do others think?
> > >
> &
either have a separate
> > Interceptor for it or add it to this one. In general, I was
> planning
> > on doing validations using the validation framework and
> anything else
> > would be done in the execute() method. What do others think?
> >
> > > -O
See below
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Mota [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework doubt
>
>
>
> Hi Jason, guys,
>
> Now the interceptor is
ceforge.net
rom: Pat Lightbody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:24 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework doubt
> >
> >
> > Jason,
> > One request --
ng on
doing validations using the validation framework and anything else would
be done in the execute() method. What do others think?
> -Original Message-
> From: Pat Lightbody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:24 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subj
o see this change and doExecute() go away.
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Mota [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework doubt
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> &g
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Mota [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework doubt
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> >map of fieldErrors. It
Hi,
>map of fieldErrors. It WILL NOT stop execution just because you have an error. You
>can apply the
>DefaultWorkflowInterceptor after the validation to have it automatically return
>"input" if you have
any errors >applied to your Action. Otherwise, you can decide how to deal with them in
yo
at the top of my execute() method I just check ActionSupport.hasErrors()
INPUT if its got errors.
but now that Jason mentioned the DefaultWorkFlowInterceptor I think I
will use that instead, man theres so many things I still don't know
exist in WW2.
Samuel Mota wrote:
Hi,
I'm using the XWork
Sorry, I'll work on putting an example of its use into the example app.
In the meantime, what this means is that it's going to add errors to the errors list
and the lists of errors in the map of fieldErrors. It WILL NOT stop execution just
because you have an error. You can apply the DefaultWork
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:35 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework
> >
> >
> > no it's not. This is because I want the password on a
> > reusable User object, but not the
I created an issue for this and assigned it to myself:
http://jira.opensymphony.com/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=XW-75
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
no it's not. This is because I want the password on a reusable User object, but
not the confirmPassword (which is just an action attribute).
Thanks,
Ian
--
>From Down & Around, Inc.
Innovative IT solutions
Software Architecture * Design * Development
~
Is your action ModelDriven, or no?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 1:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework
>
>
> I have just started to use the validation framework, and am
>
> FormProc can do as much or as little as you like. If you
> only specify a
> validator then the values will only be validated. If you want to use
> FormProc to do type conversion then you can specify a type converter.
> This goes the same for storing the data (in a bean, hash map, etc),
>
going to do
form validation in a vastly different fashion then you may as well take
advantage of FormProc's maturity.
Sincerely,
Anthony Eden
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Eden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 6:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
-Original Message-
> From: Anthony Eden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 6:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework (checked into Xwork)
>
>
> Jason,
>
> Why are you writing a new validation frame
27;s definitely more to be done here.
-Original Message-
From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 4:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework (checked into Xwork)
How would you handle i18n support, and parametrised me
How would you handle i18n support, and parametrised messages?
Eg, if you wanted '${0} is an invalid name' as your message
Quoting Jason Carreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I checked a new validation framework into Xwork this morning that I got
> running last night. It's based on some ideas like runt
to be done here.
> -Original Message-
> From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 4:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework (checked into Xwork)
>
>
> How would you handle i18n support,
44 matches
Mail list logo
