okay, okay. i give up! ;-)
we could always insert StringValidator later if anyone asks for it...
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Jonathan Locke wrote:
do you have something against abstract classes? it DOES validate a string. it just doesn't implement the validation... ;-)
No, but it doesn't do anything and StringValidator implies it validates a String. It doesn't give me a good intention, it just doesn't feel right. And adding an in between layer called StringValidator *really* seems unnecessary.
Like I said before: if I look at extension points for a framework I don't look at ConcreteTypeNames, but for AbstractTypeNames or CustomTypeNames. These cleary point to extension points.
If I ever need a validator for String types, I look at StringValidator. But in my case, I'm going to implement a custom date validator, not a custom String validator.
Martijn
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
