It's not entirely unusual to see posts on the dev list that belong to the user list. This seems to be one of the few that go the other way. Aside from posting this on the dev list, you can also post this idea on Bugzilla as an enhancement request. (Some would say post on bugzilla first then initiate a discussion on the dev list.) From there, you can [optionally] attach patches that implement your ideas and pray that the committers like your idea/patch enough to commit it to the core and maintain and support it.
Hubert On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:31:01 +1000, William Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now that I've had a year or so or heavy Struts use, I've come to believe that > (IMHO) validation within Struts is a little less clear and concise than it > could otherwise be with a few small changes. > > Currently, validation is defined by specifying a true/false value for the > 'validate' attribute for an ActionMapping, and which validation to perform is > defined by either the ActionMapping's (Form) 'name' or 'path' attribute > depending on whether the Form extends from ValidatorActionForm or not. > > It seems to me that it would be clearer to introduce a 'validation' attribute > into ActionMapping which defines the Id of the validation (if any) to > perform. This would supercede the 'validate' attribute and removes the > responsibility of identifying the validation target from the combination of > the (Form) 'name' attribute and the ActionForm inheritance hierarchy. > > It also allows all the benefits of using (currently) using a > ValidatorActionForm to validate based on ActionMapping path, plus those of > using Form named mappings, while also allowing the freedom to mix, match and > reuse validations across ActionMappings. > > It should be easy to make this new addition entirely backward compatible. Ie > If 'validation' attribute is not found then look for current attributes and > follow the existing validation path, at least for some deprecation period. > > Once this refactoring has been achieved, it also opens up the possibility of > further enhancing the existing validation mechanism. Ie Allowing validations > to contain other validations etc. Though I would first start by simplifying > the validation definitions, which I also find somewhat non-intuitive at times. > > Anyway, just my 2 cents. > I'd like to thank the Struts development community for a pretty decent > framework, especially those worked on Tiles - it really rocks! > > William Ferguson > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
