>From: "Alexandre Poitras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Cool but my problem is there are two messages (detailled and summary)
> and I want to support runtime parameters. So I was thinking of adding
> children UIParam components but I don't know how I would specify to
> which message a parameters belong.
>
>
> Cool but my problem is there are two messages (detailled and summary)
> and I want to support runtime parameters. So I was thinking of adding
> children UIParam components but I don't know how I would specify to
> which message a parameters belong.
>
You might be able to just use the order they are added. This approach didn't
work for the shale CommonsValidator component because you can declare
that rules have dependencies. Then you kind of have to assume that the outer
rule has the same positional arguments as the dependent rule. I like the name
association more than the positional.
Could the t:buffer be used to create a message and chain into the message param?
Gary
> On 4/19/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > On 4/19/06, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > > I would like to be able to customize validation messages. I know you
> > > can override the default message but my problem with this approach is
> > > that there isn't a specific message per validator. And I would prefer
> > > a declarative approach so creating a custom validator each time isn't
> > > an option. So far I was thinking about extending the default validator
> > > to support some message facets, something like "messageDetail" and
> > > "messageSummary". This way I can use outputFormat components. So
> > > basically I an wondering if someone thinks it is a bad idea and have a
> > > better one to suggest.
> >
> > All of the Tomahawk and sandbox components now support a "message" < BR>> ; > attribute that will allow you to do this.
> >
>
>
> --
> Alexandre Poitras
> Québec, Canada
> > On 4/19/06, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > > I would like to be able to customize validation messages. I know you
> > > can override the default message but my problem with this approach is
> > > that there isn't a specific message per validator. And I would prefer
> > > a declarative approach so creating a custom validator each time isn't
> > > an option. So far I was thinking about extending the default validator
> > > to support some message facets, something like "messageDetail" and
> > > "messageSummary". This way I can use outputFormat components. So
> > > basically I an wondering if someone thinks it is a bad idea and have a
> > > better one to suggest.
> >
> > All of the Tomahawk and sandbox components now support a "message" < BR>> ; > attribute that will allow you to do this.
> >
>
>
> --
> Alexandre Poitras
> Québec, Canada
