Ted Husted wrote:
Robert Leland wrote:
> Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may
> be 100%. I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to
> Beta status is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0
> version which has released in Augustand be
Robert Leland wrote:
> Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may
> be 100%. I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to
> Beta status is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0
> version which has released in Augustand been designated an Al
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe we can wait until it's time to add a form of validate that will
> just take a mutable ActionContext and return void, and deprecate it all
> at once.
Well, ActionError was easily replaced with ActionMessage. Also, I updated
most references to Ac
Maybe we can wait until it's time to add a form of validate that will
just take a mutable ActionContext and return void, and deprecate it all
at once.
Robert Leland wrote:
David Graham wrote:
Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We still need to use
ActionErrors because the Acti
st" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
> David Graham wrote:
>
> >Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We still need to use
> >ActionErrors because the ActionFor
David Graham wrote:
Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We still need to use
ActionErrors because the ActionForm.validate() method returns an instance
of that class. ActionMessage should be used instead of ActionError
though.
Eventually we'll need to add a method that will allow u
Message-
> From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:35 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: RE: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on
Validator 1.1.0
>
> Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We
still
> need to
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:07 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on
> Validator 1.1.0
> >
> > +1
> >
>
-
> From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:07 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on
Validator 1.1.0
>
> +1
>
> > Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts.
In
> fact it may
+1
> Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be
> 100%.
> I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status
> is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version which
> has released in August
> and been designated an Alpha. I pro
I agree 100%. +1 to using commons-validator 1.1.0.
David
--- Robert Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be
>
> 100%.
> I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status
> is to
> make the nightly build of
ject: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
> Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be
> 100%.
> I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status is
to
> make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version wh
Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be
100%.
I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status is to
make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version which has
released in August
and been designated an Alpha. I propose that this S
13 matches
Mail list logo
