A few more questions. 1) What should happen if the compared values do not implement Comparable and no Comparable is provided?
Right now, it's passively passing validation. I wonder if it should throw a FacesException (not ValidationException) instead? 2) If either the foreign component value or the parent component value are null, perform no validation? This is going to happen by default if the parent component value is null since JSF won't execute validators in that case. We can't validate if: a) value is null and foreign value is null b) value is null and foreign value is not null. We could try to validate if c) value is not null and foreign value is null d) value is not null and foreign value is not null For consistency, I'd say we'd do the same thing for the foreign key, and only try to validate for case d). On 10/25/05, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > @attribute name: > > Couldn't find anything in the 1.2 spec. Looks like it's been > postponed to 2.0 for everything but the required attribute, and for > the required attribute it's named "requiredMessage" > > So I'm recommending that we use "message" as the attribute. > > @validator name: > > "compareToValidator" was perfect, until Mathias's java.util.Comparator > suggestion :) > But I think it still works even with that suggestion, and I'm going to > go with that for now. > > @java.util.Comparator: > > Excellent. I'll add this in. > > @operator names: > > I decided to go ahead and add in "eq", "ne", [...], "==", "!=", [...] > and "=" as operator names since there wasn't any cost to supporting > multiple versions. > > On 10/25/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > @attribute name: > > > > is there something like this in the RI 1.2? I think that yes, so maybe > > we should go with their name for this. > > -----/Original Message----- > > +1 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > @comparable: right, there is the interface name - I didn't think about that. > > > > But then the "equalsValidator" is named by the method it calls - so > > maybe we should take the method name here as well - > > "compareToValidator" or more simple "compareValidator" ? > > > > Forget about my suggestions if I start to enerve you - then just take > > the interface name ;) > > -----/Original Message----- > > Consider the stage for this to be some sort of brain-storming... > > > > -----Original Message----- > > define an additional attribute (comparator) which allows the user to > > specify a comparator instance which implements java.util.Comparator if > > the objects don´t implement Comparable > > -----/Original Message----- > > Good idea > > > > regards > > Alexander > > >
