>From: "Hubert Rabago" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 4/19/06, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > > It'd be OK to have a convenience tag - like - for
> > > using a new custom commons-validator, without any attributes at all
> > > other than "type". There's no good reason to cram all the pre-existing
> > > validators into one tag. They should be in separate tags.
> >
> > That's not a bad idea.
>
> I'm not sure about this, but doesn't this describe the existing
> Tomahawk validators (creditCard, email, regExp)?
>
>
> On 4/19/06, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > > It'd be OK to have a convenience tag - like - for
> > > using a new custom commons-validator, without any attributes at all
> > > other than "type". There's no good reason to cram all the pre-existing
> > > validators into one tag. They should be in separate tags.
> >
> > That's not a bad idea.
>
> I'm not sure about this, but doesn't this describe the existing
> Tomahawk validators (creditCard, email, regExp)?
>
That's what I was thinking too. We could create a subclass of
CommonsValidator or a custom tag for each type of validator.
Each subclass would only describe the attributes/variables needed
for the specific rule.
I do like your ValidatorVar tag too because it is closer to the
commons validator way. It's like the f:attribute is to the component.
> Hubert
Gary
