> > Alberto particularly wanted to be able to supply his own validate > > in ToscaWidgets, and if there's signficant benefit in letting > > people tweek validate, it makes sense to decouple it from the > > controller so that people could much more reasonably do that. > > I can certainly understand that, but again, I think we can > accomplish this without having to sacrifice the elegance of the > current solution, or making the decorator more complex than it needs > to be. I'd rather see us design @validate to be extensible by > passing in callables.
Well, I think the stack trace is a bit confused by all the inspect_cal, perform_call, stuff in the controller anyway, but I pretty much agree that if both validate and expose maintain the same form there is a nice symmetry to that. Plus I agree that the current validation setup is easy to understand, and I hope adding a callable and the specific hook toscawidget hook where you can pass a form (or anything with a .validate method) to the @validate, and possibly the suggested ability to pass a generic callable in, should provide enough flexibility. But I think we should wait for Alberto to make his argument before we make a final decision. But in the meantime I'm adding tickets for improving the current validation system. --Mark Ramm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
