Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread stanlick
Thanks Ted! I felt a little queezy about using "requiredstring" but couldn't get Eclipse to reveal a list of valid atrribute values with code assist. On 3/23/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 3/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what about simple type conversion?

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread Ted Husted
On 3/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: what about simple type conversion? How will you ever have non-string coming from html? Does this mean we are back to domain object with only strings? No, it means that we have a special validator for Strings to cover both the notion of be

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread Dave Newton
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > what about simple type conversion? How will you ever > have non-string coming from html? Does this mean we > are back to domain object with only strings? S2 (and others) already do simple type conversion. You will "never" have non-strings coming from the *browser*

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread stanlick
what about simple type conversion? How will you ever have non-string coming from html? Does this mean we are back to domain object with only strings? On 3/23/07, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Are you suggesting that we *ARE* back to needing > *DUMB* string

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread Dave Newton
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Are you suggesting that we *ARE* back to needing > *DUMB* strings in our *RICH* domain models? I > thought the tired old FormBean was a thing of the > past! That's backwards. You were testing an int with a String test and it failed *because* it wasn't viewing every

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread Ted Husted
There's a different validator for numeric types. * http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/required-validator.html On 3/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oh! It is an int. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread stanlick
Are you suggesting that we *ARE* back to needing *DUMB* strings in our *RICH* domain models? I thought the tired old FormBean was a thing of the past! On 3/23/07, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Oh! It is an int. That could cause a problem :) Probably n

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread Dave Newton
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Oh! It is an int. That could cause a problem :) Probably not a good idea anyway, since you may want to enforce either Zip or Zip+4 and not let people enter "145". d. 8:00? 8:

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread stanlick
Oh! It is an int. Scott On 3/23/07, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What do you mean by target type? What (Java) type is the value you are validating? > > On 3/23/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Is the target type a String? > > > > On

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread Dave Newton
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What do you mean by target type? What (Java) type is the value you are validating? > > On 3/23/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Is the target type a String? > > > > On 3/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Actually, I remove

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread stanlick
What do you mean by target type? On 3/23/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is the target type a String? On 3/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, I removed the js attributes and it behaved the same. ---

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread Ted Husted
Is the target type a String? On 3/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, I removed the js attributes and it behaved the same. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread stanlick
Actually, I removed the js attributes and it behaved the same. On 3/23/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What happens if the custom JavaScripts are not used, but the validation element is used? If the JavaScript seems to be culprit, then I'd use FireBug or something to watch the reques

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread Ted Husted
What happens if the custom JavaScripts are not used, but the validation element is used? If the JavaScript seems to be culprit, then I'd use FireBug or something to watch the request, to see if there is something funky going on there. The server-side can only handle what it receives. -Ted. On 3

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread stanlick
Server side. On 3/23/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is it the server-side or client-side validation that is firing when it should not? If it is the client-side, and the custom scripts are based on Prototype, there could be DOM-related issues, since Prototype rewrites the DOM. -Ted.

Re: Validator Issue

2007-03-23 Thread Ted Husted
Is it the server-side or client-side validation that is firing when it should not? If it is the client-side, and the custom scripts are based on Prototype, there could be DOM-related issues, since Prototype rewrites the DOM. -Ted. On 3/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have

Re: Validator issue

2006-07-19 Thread Wendy Smoak
On 7/19/06, harriquitawn tawn tawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have configured 2 struts-config.xml files (struts-config1.xml and struts-config2.xml), two validation.xml files (validation1.xml and validation2.xml), one validator-rules.xml and the web.xml file. ... When I execute it, I obtain th