comparingValidator works for me. As Alexander pointed out, I used comparableValidator as a "first guess" because it works on any objects implementing Comparable.
I don't see the need for comparingValidator to depend on the OptionalValidatorFramework, although the supporting "boolean wrapping validator" that Alexander proposed might share code with the OVF project. The OptionalValidatorFramework isn't quite ready yet. I'd say it's 95% done functionally, but there's still some more work that needs to be done to handle converters better. Now that we've got it functional, we have a lot of cleanup that remains. I'm also not happy with how the facelets integration was implemented, and I need to work out those details with the Facelets folks. Does anyone have a suggestion on the attribute name for specifying an optional identifier of the message as it is the message-files? This attribute would be a good tomahawk extension for all validators. On 10/22/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > Just a naming thing - shouldn't it be <comparingValidator> or > <compareValidator> instead of <comparableValidator>? > -----/Original Message----- > I guess the name is just a first throw... maybe comparable > because it accepts any Comparable object... But part of bringing > it up here is get some more opinions. > > > -----Original Message----- > By the way, are you guys going to move the optional validator > framework over as well? > -----/Original Message----- > Well, I opened the jsf-comp project as a means to try out stuff > in a shared way. the rules for getting access are more loose. > And when the community thinks our stuff is good enough, I would > really enjoy seeing it moved to the myfaces project. Consider > our project as a playground for shareable components, a testbed > before moving them to MyFaces. > > the comparable/comparing validator most likely will depend on the > optional validator stuff. > > Does that sound good? > > regards, > Alexander >
