Mark Galbreath wrote: > You know, I just don't get it. I think Validator was a great idea that > simply proved wrong in implementation. And I know I am not alone it > this assessment.
I've been using the Validator for about two and half years now, and I have to agree, that it does seem to be finicky to setup at first, especially when I move from one implementation to another.
One problem may be confusion between the two Validator classes. (One uses the mapping attribute and the other uses the mapping path.)
But, once it is in, it works like a charm. It works particularly well with DynaActionForms, since you can then define both the ActionForm properties and their validations in XML.
In fact, the only problem is that it doesn't go far enough. What would be truly useful would being able to define both the ValidatorForm attributes and the DynaProperties as part of the same element. For extra credit, you could throw in an attribute to define what type of UI control the form is suppose to use. From there, it's not hard to imagine a tag that could look at this "MetaForm" and actually write a simple form for you. Update the MetaForm element, and the controls are added and subtracted ... as if by magic =:0)
-Ted.
-- Ted Husted, Struts in Action <http://husted.com/struts/book.html>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
