The only reason I didn't go with JSTL is that I couldn't find a way to represent the Foo[] syntax (meaning "the same index into Foo that is being used by the field being checked") in JSTL, and that's very useful when you're doing master-detail records where you want the Last Name for a row to be required if the first name is filled out. Currently, you could do this as: ((*this* != null) OR (Firstname[] == null)), how would you do this in a JSTL syntax?
James (Still on vacation in Ohio, but back in the land of broadband after living through 24Kb hell in Chillicothe) > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Hightower [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 5:43 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: JSTL EL Validator rule: A better requiredif and > validatewhen using JSTL > > > Comments below... (**) > > David Graham: > requiredif was released with 1.1, validwhen will be released > with 1.2, I will -1 any other changes like this for 1.2 > because we're too late in the cycle for something like this. > > ** Okay. No problem. I was merely stating that I give it a +1 > (although my vote does not count as I am not a contributor or > committer). I did not know how late in the cycle you all were. > > Ted is already working on cutting 1.2 and nobody wants > another 1.1 release cycle situation. > > ** Excellent. I did not know that. Good to hear. I give Ted a > big +1. (I loved his book). > > David Graham: > That's not how Struts works. James spent the time to test > and commit validwhen and it will be released with 1.2. > > ** Understood. I was not negating the work James did. I was > merely expressing my opinion. I love the idea of > validatewhen, just not the implementation. I've read James' > book on Struts and I respect his talent and ability. I think > JSTL should have been selected instead. If I was voting back > then and my vote counted, I would have given it a -1. I give > James a +1 for effort. > > > David Graham: > I agree that using the EL for validation makes sense for the > reasons you stated. > > ** Cool. Finally I feel some sunshine. I was beginning to > think you did not like this idea. > > David Graham: > This would get Struts away from the restrictive requiredif > rule and the ANTLR generated validwhen rule. > > *** Yes. Yes. Yes. > > David Graham: > Using the standard EL would be a Good Thing. > > *** Yes. > > David Graham: > However, Struts 1.1 is based on Servlet 2.2 which prevents > the use of Servlet 2.3 features (the EL) in the standard distro. > > *** Bummer. I did not know this. What a drag! > *** Are you sure? I think you can use the validator rule with > 2.2. Why couldn't you? (excuse my ignorance) I believe you. > > > David Graham: > An EL based validation could live in the contrib directory > along with the struts-el taglib. > > ** Excellent. At least it would have good company. > ** Okay. Is this where it lives until Struts is based on > Servlet 2.3+ not Servlet 2.2? > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
