-Igor
On 2/27/06, Eelco Hillenius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah, that sounds good. For 1.3.
Eelco
> so maybe we reserve "required" and "validation" keys for both situations.
> if we add conversion to the workflow then validators can even assume the
> correct type. the workflow can be something like this:
>
> 1) check required
> 2) convert if needed into some transient variable accessible through
> getConvertedInput() ?
> 3) run validators on the converted value
>
> that way conversion is also a preprocessing step like required and is
> cleaner imho. we also only convert once which is good in case its expensive.
>
> -Igor
>
>
>
> >
> > Eelco
> >
> > On 2/27/06, Igor Vaynberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > yep, thats exactly the idea. we dont have to deprecate
> RequiredTextField, it
> > > can just call setRequired(true) in the constructor, its not doing much
> more
> > > then that now.
> > >
> > > -Igor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/27/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > so FormComponent:
> > > > public final void validate()
> > > > {
> > > > final int size = validators_size();
> > > > for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
> > > > {
> > > > validators_get(i).validate(this);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > would be come something like this:
> > > >
> > > > public final void validate()
> > > > {
> > > > if(!Strings.isEmpty(getInput()))
> > > > {
> > > > final int size = validators_size();
> > > > for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
> > > > {
> > > > validators_get(i).validate(this);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > else if(isRequired())
> > > > {
> > > > // set error message
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > So validators then always can assume they really can do something.
> > > >
> > > > Then RequiredTextField could be depricated..
> > > >
> > > > Fine by me, i also think that require is more or less a property just
> like
> > > enabled or visible.
> > > >
> > > > johan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2/27/06, Igor Vaynberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > im working on some form/validation stuff right now and it seems to
> me
> > > that it would be cleaner to remove the RequiredValidator and instead
> > > introduce a required property (flag) for a form component.
> > > > >
> > > > > there are a couple of reasons why i think this is better:
> > > > > 1) our validators will be cleaner. currently our validators dont
> know if
> > > null is a valid value so we always first check if the value is empty,
> and
> > > then if its not run the validator. take a look at PatternValidator:107.
> with
> > > this change validators wont run when the field is empty.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) it is useful for other components to know if the field is
> required or
> > > not.
> > > > >
> > > > > what do you guys think?
> > > > >
> > > > > so instead of add(new
> > > TextField("foo").add(RequiredValidator.getInstance ())) it will be
> add(new
> > > TextField("foo").setRequired(true));
> > > > >
> > > > > -Igor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting
> language
> > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live
> webcast
> > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding
> territory!
> >
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wicket-develop mailing list
> > [email protected]
> >
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
> >
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-develop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
