Sure there are problems. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Winer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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.
I'm not sure why Craig did it this way as well, but he did say this could change before he marks the API as final. > Also, it lumps all of the functionality into one tag with a "type" > parameter, which is an API design that has usability problems. The biggest advantage of this is that one can easily add custom validations without having to declare a new TLD and registering a new validator in faces-config. Just provide a javascript method and a server side method. I think this is a big convenience. > 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.) Niall Permberton (Commons Validator developer) has a Javascript extension [1] that fixes this. I've been able to build on this to show validation error messages on the page for Struts, and I've been able to use it to do the same for JSF as well (or at least, prove that it works). I'm at the same point as Cagatay, where I want to use the same message tag that the server side validation will use so no matter which side does validation, the message will appear on the same place. At this point, though, your stack becomes Shale + Commons Validator + Niall's JS extension + my integration code. However I feel it's still better than server side validation for required, though. Hubert [1] http://niallp.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/validatorjs.html > 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.
