I already tried it, and it is backward compatible. The thing about Perl5Util is it provides a convinience method of match(value, pattern) which creates a Perl5Compiler, builds a cache of compiled patterns and calls the Perl5Matcher.contains() method. There isn't an equivalent convinience method that calls the Perl5Matcher.matches() method.
Replacing: boolean match = Perl5Util.match(value, pattern) requires: Perl5Compiler compiler = new Perl5Compiler(); Pattern compiledPattern = compiler.compile(pattern); Perl5Matcher matcher = new Perl5Matcher(); boolean match = matcher.matches(value, compiledPattern); But then, it would be less efficient as the pattern is being compiled every time. It would be straight forward to do the equivalent of Perl5Util and create a cache. I might have a look at this later and submit a patch to Commons. Niall ----- Original Message ----- > "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey thanks for your help - what you suggested worked (i.e. using > > "^[\d,]*$") - I was using the ORO demo, but if you don't put the right > > stuff > > in....:-) > > > > OK, I'm picking up regex slowly - so this works because ^ is for the > > beginning of a line and % is for the end of a line. > > I think you meant $ instead of % but yes that's correct. > > > > > Apologies for the "doesn't work" slander then - but wouldn't it be > > better to > > use Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) and then there would be no need > > to > > specify the ^ and $ characters at the start and end - simpler and less > > confusing? > > > > This could be done and would be backward compatible. > > I really haven't looked at the differences between matches() and > contains() so I don't know if it's backwards compatible. You could try > changing it and let us know what happens. > > David > > > > > Niall > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:39 PM > > Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] > > > > > > > > > > --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Graham > > > > > > > > OK, I decided to look further into your suggestion, but didn't get > > very > > > > far > > > > and I think its because mask doesn't work. > > > > > > I know it works because I use it in my apps :-). > > > > > > > > > > > I started with a simple expression of [\d,]* to validate that the > > input > > > > only contains numbers or a comma. Whatever I input though validator > > > > always > > > > passed it as valid. > > > > > > ORO's test applet is really helpful when testing regexs. Try putting > > ^ at > > > the front and $ at the end of the pattern. ORO seems to need these to > > > work properly unlike Java 1.4 regexs. > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > Looking into validator it uses Perl5Util.match(pattern, value) > > > > > > > > This utility uses the Perl5Matcher.contains(value, pattern) method > > which > > > > only checks that the value contains the pattern - not that matches > > (it > > > > says > > > > so in the Perl5Util documentation). > > > > > > > > Isn't this the wrong thing to do - shouldn't validator be using the > > > > Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) method. I had a look at commons > > > > validator test thinking this must be tested for and I must be > > > > mis-understanding it - but mask seems to be the one thing there are > > no > > > > tests > > > > for - and there don't seem to be any in struts either for > > > > FieldChecks.validateMask()) > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, am I right - is this a bug, or am I just using it wrongly? > > > > > > > > Niall > > > > > > > > P.S. If I am right, then it implies no one is using mask and I think > > > > thats > > > > an argument for my simpler number validation. > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM > > > > Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to > > support > > > > all > > > > > variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that > > duplicate > > > > what > > > > > can already be done with mask. > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Robert, > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no > > knowledge > > > > of > > > > > > regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I > > > > couldn't > > > > > > get > > > > > > it to (including your suggestion). > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't > > know > > > > how > > > > > > to > > > > > > make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much > > > > more > > > > > > straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people > > are > > > > > > probably > > > > > > using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, > > it > > > > then > > > > > > is > > > > > > much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for > > > > validation. > > > > > > > > > > > > I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to > > > > validate > > > > > > numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > Niall > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Leland wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not > > > > correct) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <field property="amount" depends="required,mask"> > > > > > > > <arg0 key="sale.amount" /> > > > > > > > <var> > > > > > > > <var-name>mask</var-name> > > > > > > > <var-value>\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)</var-value> > > > > > > > </var> > > > > > > > </field> > > > > > > > > > > > > I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a > > > > patch > > > > > > to > > > > > > bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number > > validations to > > > > do > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch allows an optional "numberPattern" variable to be > > > > specified > > > > > > for > > > > > > the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double > > > > validations. > > > > > > For > > > > > > Example: > > > > > > > > > > > > <field property="amount" depends="required,integer"> > > > > > > <arg0 key="sale.amount" /> > > > > > > <var> > > > > > > <var-name>numberPattern</var-name> > > > > > > <var-value>#,##0:(#,##0)</var-value> > > > > > > </var> > > > > > > </field> > > > > > > > > > > > > If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is > > used to > > > > > > parse > > > > > > the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale). > > > > > > > > > > > > I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator > > User > > > > Guide > > > > > > which describes all the standard suppiled validations and shows > > > > examples > > > > > > of > > > > > > usage, including using the new "numberPattern" variable. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > Niall > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
