* +/- 0 for creating an abstract validator that does the conversion for you before the actual validation
What is your argument to be neutral? I think it is better if a validator gets the true value it should validate and not the string representation. It makes validation a lot better to understand and validators easier to write. Else people have to cast the string again and again if you chain validators. In some cases the cast won`t be so tricky.. but in some casus it could be problematic (dates for example).. you don`t want one date validator with a MM-dd-yyyy and the rest a dd-MM-yyyy. So this approach doesn`t helps the DRY principle and the cast before validate does. * -1 for everything else that was proposed Eelco > > Making validators more general purpose would make it less clear how/ for > what they should be used. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > It comes down to evaluating values :) So I don`t see the harm... and I > think it would be generally be a better way to design an extendable > framework like Wicket. I have never taken a framework as it is.. I > always want to do my thing with it.. if have done it to a lot of > framework of the jdk, if have done it to Spring.. and I`m going to do > it with Wicket.. So give me the tools to do my job. > ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
<<winmail.dat>>
