Thanks a lot for the link and the explanation.
Un saludo,
José A.
> On 6 Jan 2018, at 10:37, Hedju Hor wrote:
>
> Hi, use @VisitorFieldValidator
> 1. in Action-Class annotad gettter Method of the model with
> @VisitorFieldValidator
> 2. @EmailValidator on getter in Model Person.getEmail
>
> s
Hi, use @VisitorFieldValidator
1. in Action-Class annotad gettter Method of the model with
@VisitorFieldValidator
2. @EmailValidator on getter in Model Person.getEmail
see
https://depressedprogrammer.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/struts-2-validation-using-annotations/
Regards
Hedju Hor
On 2018-01-
I did try it like so, it is working, but not as expected. I need to pass
an argument to the resource bundle so it gets correclty displayed with
the name, for example this property:
error.required = Field {0} is required.
When called like this: getText("error.required", {getText("label.name")})
Did you try something like this?
@RequiredStringValidator(
fieldName = "label.name",
key ="error.required ",
message = "Name required.")}
Alex Rodriguez Lopez wrote:
>
> Hi struts users!
>
> I'm on my way to change from XML based validation to annotation
> validation.
On Nov 8, 2007 12:29 PM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Gary Affonso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Look at the "Dynamic Method Invocation" section,
> > > 1/2-2/3 of the way down.
> > Well, that explains it. The wildcard feature seems
> > to come from s1 (which I never used) and
Dave Newton wrote:
--- Gary Affonso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look at the "Dynamic Method Invocation" section,
> 1/2-2/3 of the way down.
Well, that explains it. The wildcard feature seems
to come from s1 (which I never used) and the
"dynamic method invocation" feature wasn't
very well d
--- Gary Affonso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Look at the "Dynamic Method Invocation" section,
> > 1/2-2/3 of the way down.
> Well, that explains it. The wildcard feature seems
> to come from s1 (which I never used) and the
> "dynamic method invocation" feature wasn't
> very well documented
Dave Newton wrote:
Curiously, action!input is not a part of the
framework I'm familiarwith. Can you point me
to some docs that describe it?
>
> http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/action-configuration.html
>
> Look at the "Dynamic Method Invocation" section,
> 1/2-2/3 of the way down.
Well, that
--- Jeromy Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Dave, does that mean you don't favour one approach
> over the other? ie. happy with multiple methods per
action?
I have no clear preference right now. I tend not to
have a lot of methods in my actions anyway, but I'll
group stuff together when it seems
Dave Newton wrote:
Again, not one *method*. That'd be crazy!
That's what's being discussed, I'm pretty sure, but
with an eye towards a different "prepare" cycle: the
whole Preparable lifecycle makes more sense if there
are multiple (request-handling) methods in an Action
class. If there's
--- Gary Affonso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted Husted wrote:
>> Meanwhile, in Struts 1 there is a "DispatchAction"
>> that does much the same thing. From other
>> discussions, I gather that "multiple actions per
>> controller" is considered a Good Thing on platforms
>> like Ruby on Rails.
It's
Ted Husted wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007 8:10 PM, Gary Affonso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For some reason folks new to s2 seem to get it backwards and want to
stuff a bunch of Action methods into a single Action class.
It's probably because the standard S2/WW validation workflow implies
that an Action
On Nov 6, 2007 8:10 PM, Gary Affonso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For some reason folks new to s2 seem to get it backwards and want to
> stuff a bunch of Action methods into a single Action class.
It's probably because the standard S2/WW validation workflow implies
that an Action class will have m
Ted Husted wrote:
Of course, if you use one-action-method per Action-class, then all the
annotations work just fine.
+1 on one-action-method per Action class.
My personal opinion (after nearly 5 years of heavy WebWork/s2 use) is
that this is the best-practice and that multiple action methods
d than the xml version?
>
>
>
> - Original message -
> From: "Fátima Silveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Users Mailing List"
> Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:58:32 +0100
> Subject: Re: Annotation Validation, per method?
>
> i dont know to use anotat
Thanks. Is this not a severe limitation of the annotation version if it
is more limited than the xml version?
- Original message -
From: "Fátima Silveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List"
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:58:32 +0100
Subject: Re:
i dont know to use anotation but with xml is ClassName-actionAlias_method-
validation.xml
On 11/5/07, Martin Gilday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can you have annotation validation per method? I have put @Validations
> on both my display and update methods (display shows the record from
> input)
17 matches
Mail list logo
