On 10/23/07, Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We have quite the existing translation system here at work (all our
>> business is overseas and we do 16 different languages), and using
>> English as the key is pretty much a non-starter in our system. (It
>> also makes it a bit harder to ch
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:30:01PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
> > Do you to be able to display the error message along with the field's
> > lable? For example:
>
> Was that supposed to say, "do you want to be able to"?
That will work. It was suppose to bee "Do you mean to be able to"
display t
On 10/23/07, Christopher H. Laco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I always use keys, and consider _AUTO and the exposure
> ERR_WRONG_PASSWORD an all out failure. I've always wanted to have a test
> module that scoured source for keys and ensured they were in all l18n files.
My solution is
Bill Moseley wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:12:08PM -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
>> Bill Moseley wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Yep, although I prefer to use English as the key to the language files
>>> instead of an ID. Easier to understand when looking at specific
>>> validation code. I can als
On 10/23/07, Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:27:17PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
>> OTOH, the server often needs the labels in order to construct good error
>> messages. An alternative is to pass error codes to the templates, but IME
>> that tends to result in
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:12:08PM -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> Bill Moseley wrote:
> [snip]
> > Yep, although I prefer to use English as the key to the language files
> > instead of an ID. Easier to understand when looking at specific
> > validation code. I can also fall back to using the
Bill Moseley wrote:
[snip]
> Yep, although I prefer to use English as the key to the language files
> instead of an ID. Easier to understand when looking at specific
> validation code. I can also fall back to using the ID (the English
> error message) if the lookup fails in the language file.
>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:27:17PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
> OTOH, the server often needs the labels in order to construct good
> error messages. An alternative is to pass error codes to the
> templates, but IME that tends to result in templates with a lot of
> code dedicated to figuring out w
On 10/23/07, Peter Karman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ** NOTE ** I know that there is an issue with some versions of DBD::SQLite. I
> cribbed the standard RDBO test code for evaluating the sqlite version. For the
> purposes of the module however, I didn't deem it a serious enough issue to
> croak
On 10/23/07, Peter Karman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I keep the labels in the html templates. I started using YAML files
>> to define the fields and labels, but then I ended up with more places
>> to define things than I felt was reasonable.
>
> Yes, that (labels in HTML) is what I do currently
Peter Karman wrote:
>
> On 10/23/2007 11:29 AM, Bill Moseley wrote:
>
>>> lib/My/Thing.pm
>>> lib/My/Thing/Form.pm
>> Is that one form for each table kind of mapping?
>>
>> I might have multiple forms for each table (or groups to tables) and
>> they are more related to the specific request (upd
I uploaded Rose::DBx::TestDB to the CPAN a few days ago. It's intended to make
it easy to write tests that use RDBO. The SYNOPSIS:
use Rose::DBx::TestDB;
my $db = Rose::DBx::TestDB‐>new;
# do something with $db
exit;
# END block will automatically clean u
On 10/23/2007 11:29 AM, Bill Moseley wrote:
>> lib/My/Thing.pm
>> lib/My/Thing/Form.pm
>
> Is that one form for each table kind of mapping?
>
> I might have multiple forms for each table (or groups to tables) and
> they are more related to the specific request (update user profile vs.
> upda
Sorry, I have not been following this thread very much, so may be way
off base.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:48:41AM -0500, Peter Karman wrote:
> Slightly different conventions. Rose::DBx::Garden puts a Form.pm class in next
> to the RDBO class, so you'd get something like:
>
> lib/My/Thing.pm
>
On 10/23/2007 11:14 AM, Peter Karman wrote:
> Yes, I see your point. It jives with my experience as well. I am taking the
> "derive form validation from db metadata as a starting point" approach.
>
> When I wrote about trying to tie the 2 together more closely,
[snip]
I should clarify: there
On 10/23/2007 10:08 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
> Again, in every large web app I've created, each database table has
> several forms that write into it--sometimes only writing partial
> values. The HTML form layer is usually the most restrictive, the ORM
> less so, and the db itself is the most p
Quoting Peter Karman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Adam,
>
> Glad you are working on this too. Perhaps we can join forces.
>
Certainly. I've only really started using Rose about a month ago, so
i'm not sure how much use i'll be, but you never know ;)
> I started something similar here:
>
> http://www
On 10/23/07, Peter Karman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The other thing I haven't yet got to (but was hoping to work on today) is some
> ways to tie the validation pieces of RHTML and RDBO together so that the
> validation code can be defined in one place. As Cees noted earlier in this
> same thread
On 10/22/2007 11:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've been fooling around with this idea for the last couple of days
> and I was wondering if I could get some feedback from the list.
Adam,
Glad you are working on this too. Perhaps we can join forces.
I started something similar here:
htt
19 matches
Mail list logo
