I have no idea on the level of effort required, but it would be nice to be able to drop in my own Validator implementation like I can logging, jdbc or message resources.
Your thought? James Mitchell Software Engineer/Struts Evangelist http://www.open-tools.org "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) > -----Original Message----- > From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Validator Integration > > > I'm mainly suggesting this to get some new ideas out there. I > don't see how > it would break backwards compatibility. As I stated earlier, if > a developer > doesn't use the validator or define a validation rule for a form then the > validate() method could just return null as usual. You wouldn't have to > override validate to maintain compatibility. Is there something else I'm > missing? > > It's not necessarily a burden to extend a different class but I do think > it's beneficial for the framework to inherently support a high class > validation framework without the developer being exposed to extending > special classes. > > David > > > > > > > >From: Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Validator Integration > >Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:16:10 -0500 > > > >David: > > > >we saw recently that you and I disagree on the "core" nature of the > >validator package. But even if 90% of Struts users decide to > validate with > >Validator, I don't think that's a compelling argument to change the > >behavior of ActionForm. > > > >First, doing so would break backwards compatibility. Second, by tying > >relatively complex validation into the core class, you sort of cut off > >other possible ways to extend ActionForm. Yes, you could argue that > >subclasses can override the validate() method and subsequently ignore > >anything in the ActionForm class which refers to validator, but > that's not > >really very clean design. Keep the core classes simple and > focused on the > >minimal requirements for interacting with other objects, and add > subclasses > >whenever more specialized behavior is needed. > > > >Is it a great burden to extend a different class if you want to use the > >validator framework to validate form input? I do agree that having two > >separate subclasses which vary only in how they key to > validation rules is > >unnecessarily complex, but otherwise, what benefits do such a > change bring? > > > >Joe > > > > > > > >At 11:42 AM -0600 2002/10/25, David Graham wrote: > >>Thanks for the input Ted. I was only suggesting changing > struts-config if > >>validator was truely merged; I agree that optional components > don't belong > >>there. The validation rules file should be separate but I'm suggesting > >>that the validator not be a plugin and have an entry similar to > >>message-resources or form-beans. > >> > >>Now the question is whether the validator is a core component? > >>I don't know what you all define as core but I believe this is a core > >>aspect. How many forms have you built that didn't need > validation of at > >>least one required field (if no form fields are required I question the > >>value of the form)? > >> > >>What are the various options for validation? I see 2 built > into Struts: > >>coding a form bean's validate() method and using the validator. > What I'm > >>suggesting is that the ActionForm.validate() method use the > validator by > >>default. > >> > >>I just don't see any need to subclass a different ActionForm > class to use > >>the validator when it seems that this will become the > predominant form of > >>validation. > >> > >>David > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Subject: Re: Validator Integration > >>>Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:09:10 -0400 > >>> > >>>I've been using the Validator for going on three years now, but > >>>I don't think I would ever want to describe it as an integal > >>>part of Struts. Struts provides a validation hotspot, and we > >>>provide the Validation as something people can plug into that > >>>spot. But we want to be very clear that it is only one of many > >>>possible solutions to validation. > >>> > >>>We provide direct support for the Validator as a convenience, > >>>but IMHO, it is not part of the true Struts core. (Of course, I > >>>don't consider the tags part of the true Struts core either =:) > >>> > >>>I'd also be very cold on amending the struts-config with the > >>>specifics for any optional component, the Validator included. > >>>Ideally, the Validation config could be shared with other > >>>platforms (not just Struts), and should be a standalone file. > >>> > >>>As mentioned elsewhere, there were two classes since some > >>>people (or maybe one person) wanted to key on the action path > >>>rather than the action attribute. But if we were patch this to > >>>use a switch, mores the better. > >>> > >>>-Ted. > >>> > >>>10/25/2002 10:34:52 AM, David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>>>It struck me the other day that the validator could be further > >>>integrated > >>>>into struts. I'm not sure about my ideas so I want to get > >>>your thoughts. y > >>>>Why should people need to subclass ValidatorActionForm instead > >>>of ActionForm > >>>>to use the validator? What forms have you built that didn't > >>>need > >>>>validation? > >>>> > >>>>My idea is that the ValidatorActionForm and ValidatorForm (why > >>>are there 2?) > >>>>behavior should be included in ActionForm and have those > >>>classes removed. I > >>> >think this will maintain backward compatibility because if the > >>>developer > >>>>hasn't defined any validation rules for a form then we could > >>>return null > >>>>from validate(). > >>>> > >>>>Further, we could include validator configuration tags in > >>>struts-config.xml > >>>>instead of using a plugin. This would signify that validator > >>>is an integral > >>>>piece of struts that most people want to use (which I believe > >>>they do). > >>>> > >>>>This is probably a post 1.1 idea but I thought I'd throw it > >>>out here. > >>>>What do you think? > >>>> > >>>>David > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>______________________________________________________________ > >>>___ > >>>>Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN. > >>>>http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-- > >>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev- > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev- > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>-- > >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >>><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > >>>For additional commands, e-mail: > >>><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > >> > >> > >>_________________________________________________________________ > >>Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > >>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > >> > >> > >>-- > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > >>For additional commands, e-mail: > >><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > >-- > >-- > >* Joe Germuska { [EMAIL PROTECTED] } > >"It's pitiful, sometimes, if they've got it bad. Their eyes get glazed, > >they go white, their hands tremble.... As I watch them I often > feel that a > >dope peddler is a gentleman compared with the man who sells records." > > --Sam Goody, 1956 > > > >-- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: > ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > >For additional commands, e-mail: > ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. > http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
