RE: Validator later rather than sooner?

-Original Message- From: John Nicholas [mailto:jakarta;mobosplash.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:49 PM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: Validator later rather than sooner? Vincent PROSPER wrote: Another thing I dont like in Struts Validator is that html:errors/ translation comes

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

. - Original Message - From: Michael Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:52 PM Subject: Re: Validator later rather than sooner? Along the same thread, we are having a validation design problem. We have broken most of our

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

OK..now I haven't done this, so this is just based on my understanding. If this is incorrect, hopefully someone else will step in. Let's say that you have the following action mapping action path=/path/to/myLogonAction type=com.something.my.package.MyLogonAction name=logonForm

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

That also sounds good. Can you please tell how this entry would look like in validation.xml if we want to validate based on action type. formset form name=logonForm field property=value(username) depends=minlength,maxlength arg0

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

You can also validate based on the action rather than the form. Just use the action type rather than the form name, and be sure to extend ValidatorActionForm rather than ValidatorForm. Dave Derry - Original Message - From: bachan s [EMAIL PROTECTED] Instead of writing different

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

From: Michael Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Validator later rather than sooner? Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:52:30 -0400 Along the same thread, we are having a validation design problem. We

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

. This way I could also get rid of the parameter in the action mapping of the struts-config.xml. Thanks, Mike - Original Message - From: Richards, Devin N (Devin) To: Struts Users Mailing List Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 1:58 PM Subject: RE: Validator later rather than sooner? Since

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

: Validator later rather than sooner? Since the validator classes extend the standard struts classes, I would get everything working correctly and then add the validator in after. We did this and it worked well (except for the current bug of the validator not supporting multiple resource bundles.) -Devin

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

List To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Validator later rather than sooner? If you do iterative development I add Validation in late iterations. .V Richards, Devin N (Devin) wrote: Since the validator classes extend the standard struts classes, I would

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

for the current bug of the validator not supporting multiple resource bundles.) -Devin -Original Message- From: Susan Bradeen [mailto:SusanB;softlanding.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 1:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Validator later rather than sooner? Is it general practice

Validator later rather than sooner?

Is it general practice, or recommended, to develop a Struts application using the Action/ActionForm classes first (getting everything working properly) and later switch to the Validator classes, OR to use the Validator classes (implementing validation) right from the beginning? I have done a

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

Vincent PROSPER wrote: Another thing I dont like in Struts Validator is that html:errors/ translation comes preformatted (error title is not i18N compliant, encapsulated in h3../h3 and with an ugly hr/): you loose the ability of putting a well displayed error beside each field of your form (this

RE: Validator later rather than sooner?

a convenient way to share pattern matching design between several forms... Vince -Original Message- From: Susan Bradeen [mailto:SusanB;softlanding.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 7:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Validator later rather than sooner? Is it general practice

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

We do use the same form. That's the problem. - Original Message - From: bachan s [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:02 PM Subject: Re: Validator later rather than sooner? Instead of writing different action forms you

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

parameters in the action mappings, which is how I do it now. The validator becomes too huge. - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Validator later rather than sooner? You have one ActionForm

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

- Original Message - From: Dave Derry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:26 PM Subject: Re: Validator later rather than sooner? You can also validate based on the action rather than the form. Just use the action type rather

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

Maybe you could subclass the UserForm into AdminUserForm and EndUserForm? David From: Michael Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Validator later rather than sooner? Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002

Re: Validator later rather than sooner?

Sorry. No I meant ValidatorActionFormdidn't realize that you were on 1.0.2. Forget what I said. It applies to 1.1 using the Validator. What about doing your validation in the Action rather than the forms validate method? You could continue to use a common form (I'm guessing that