The Shale incorporation of commons-validator is not a good role model... First off, you can turn on client-side validation without turning on server-side validation, which is completely wrong.
Also, it lumps all of the functionality into one tag with a "type" parameter, which is an API design that has usability problems. And implementation-wise, it uses popups. (At some point, Struts validator used a separate popup for every message instead of one popup for all, which is really annoying - dunno if that's been fixed since then.) -- Adam On 4/18/06, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shale comes with it's own validators that can do both client side and server > side. Each validator has flags like client="true" server="true". The > disadvantage is that client side validation uses popus that is not favored > much. > > A central mechanism to control validation setting should be good but also it > would be flexible if a validator can override the global setting. > > > On 4/19/06, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And you might check what Struts Shale already does. From what I know > > it integrates commons-validator. > > > > On 4/18/06, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I guess the optimal solution is as follows; > > > > > > Client side validation feature is added to Tomahawk and Sandbox > validators > > > using an attribute(client="true"). If this flag is true then validation > > > takes place at client otherwise regular server side validation happens. > > > There should be other attributes to customize the client validation like > > > enablePopup, highlight and etc. > > > > > > What do you think? I'm eagerly waiting to create patches that would > enable > > > these validators to validate at client side. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Cagatay > > > > > > > > > On 4/18/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 4/18/06, Martin Marinschek < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > That's the other thing I'd like to have - automatic client-side > > > > > validation happening with the server side validation in place. It > > > > > would be good to have something like a hook in the extended > validators > > > > > - with this hook, they are asked to render out their client-side > > > > > validation javascript. > > > > > > > > > > Using this, separate validators wouldn't be necessary. > > > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > > > > Still, I think that the rendering question is very important. In the > > > > > current state when working with ADF, I wished I could disable client > > > > > side validation in ADF faces alltogether (I'm sure there is a way to > > > > > do so, didn't look deeper into it so far). The popup box is just not > > > > > context sensitive enough. > > > > > > > > Yep, you can disable it altogether - there's a WEB-INF/web.xml flag. > > > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Alexandre Poitras > > Québec, Canada > > > >
