Hi all, As per discussions with team members and UX team members happened today, I would like to continue implementations to the client-side validations using JQuery validation plugin licensed by MIT.Through the discussions JQuery validation plugin is mostly used in web form validations as well as It is used by other products in WSO2 too.So I am now currently working on how to integrate own validation framework using this plugin to Enterprise Store.Any suggestions and advice would be appreciate.
Please refer the document[1] for further details. [1] - https://docs.google.com/a/wso2.com/document/d/1GAPufyvC1HC30oUB5TdIupijQ8JrZXthx6WM4HRZxJI/edit?usp=sharing On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Rajeenthini Satkunam <rajeenth...@wso2.com> wrote: > Hi, > > It's great that we can have a POC to ensure that above scenarios supported > by selected client-side validation framework.I am currently working on a > sample using JQuery validation plugin as well as check with other > validation frameworks too. > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Dakshika Jayathilaka <daksh...@wso2.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> AFAKI we need to think about multiple scenarios before we incorporate >> third party library into ES. >> >> Validation Scenarios: >> >> 1. Bind HTML5 type based validation >> 2. Multiple Custom Error message support per field >> 3. Dependent validation >> 4. Ajax validation onChange >> 5. Support for pattern based validation(Regx) >> 6. Localization support >> >> IMHO we need to fulfill most of above scenarios in general use. Shall we >> do a POC first? >> >> WDYT? >> >> Regards, >> >> *Dakshika Jayathilaka* >> PMC Member & Committer of Apache Stratos >> Software Engineer >> WSO2, Inc. >> lean.enterprise.middleware >> 0771100911 >> >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Rajeenthini Satkunam < >> rajeenth...@wso2.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> As per discussions, I would like to use JQuery validation plugin current >>> version*:* 1.13.1 to client-side validations for Enterprise Store >>> Publisher.JQuery validation plugin is licensed by MIT.So can anyone please >>> advice me on can I proceed this task with using JQuery validation plugin? >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Rajeenthini Satkunam < >>> rajeenth...@wso2.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi herrmann, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your suggestion.As well as now I am only concerning most on >>>> the client-side validation and user experience.So I have proposed the above >>>> design.I will look into this link that you have provide well. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Manfred Herrmann < >>>> herrmann.manf...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> hi Rajeenthini, >>>>> >>>>> the proposed jquery-validation would a realy helpful feature. >>>>> But even more helpful would it be to validate on client-side in sync >>>>> with server-side-validation. The data would be secure and consistent >>>>> through server-side-validation. And at the same time the user experience >>>>> would be great. >>>>> >>>>> In jaggeryjs framework codebase there are rhino and hostobjects used. >>>>> Would it not a good idea to try using jquery-validation for server-side >>>>> validation and sync the rules and methods to the client? >>>>> >>>>> The development workflow could like: >>>>> 1. client-side development and test cycle >>>>> 2. deploy on jaggery-server-side and test client+server-side validation >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> best regards >>>>> Manfred >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> e.g. some thoughts about client-/server-side validation from: >>>>> http://blogs.lessthandot.com/index.php/webdev/client-side-vs-server-side-validation-in-web-applications/ >>>>> >>>>> Client-Side >>>>> >>>>>> But when we look at how well it achieves the purpose, we find it has >>>>>> a lot of gaps: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Yes – It prevents bad values for users with good intent >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Yes – It helps the good intent user correct their value without >>>>>> the overhead of a server round-trip >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - No – It prevents bad values when a script fails to load (like >>>>>> jQuery) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - No – It prevents bad values as a result of malicious editing of >>>>>> the web form (developer tools) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - No – It prevents bad values submitted directly to the endpoint >>>>>> (ex: Cross-Site Request Forgery >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_%28CSRF%29> >>>>>> ) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - No – It prevents bad values when accessed in frames >>>>>> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross_Frame_Scripting> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - No – It prevents bad values when data is altered via >>>>>> aMan-in-the-middle >>>>>> attack <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Man-in-the-middle_attack> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Server-Side >>>>> >>>>>> So how does this stack up against the client-side method? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Yes – It prevents bad values for users with good intent >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - No – It helps the good intent user correct their value without >>>>>> the overhead of a server round-trip >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Yes – It prevents bad values when a script fails to load (like >>>>>> jQuery) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Yes – It prevents bad values as a result of malicious editing >>>>>> of the web form (developer tools) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Yes – It prevents bad values submitted directly to the endpoint >>>>>> (ex: Cross-Site Request Forgery >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_%28CSRF%29> >>>>>> ) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Yes – It prevents bad values when accessed in frames >>>>>> <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross_Frame_Scripting> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Yes – It prevents bad values when data is altered via a >>>>>> Man-in-the-middle >>>>>> attack <https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Man-in-the-middle_attack> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2015-04-08 6:53 GMT+02:00 Rajeenthini Satkunam <rajeenth...@wso2.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> *purpose & Research* >>>>>> >>>>>> I am currently working on a task that do client-side validation for >>>>>> the Enterprise Store - Publisher.As for now we have server-side >>>>>> validation >>>>>> by asset RXT. For example it checks whether the field is required or >>>>>> readonly as well as validation for URL.I would like to propose a design >>>>>> for >>>>>> pluggable client-side validation using JQuery validator. >>>>>> >>>>>> JQuery validation plugin makes simple client-side form validation >>>>>> easy and gives plenty of customization options. >>>>>> >>>>>> Advantages of JQuery validation plugin >>>>>> >>>>>> - Set of validation methods >>>>>> - Default error messages >>>>>> - It's providing API for writing our own methods >>>>>> - I18n support -(Error messages can be translated into 37 other >>>>>> languages) >>>>>> >>>>>> *Proposed Design view* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Include another property called client-side-validation in >>>>>> asset.js >>>>>> - define a custom validation called validations.js in the js >>>>>> folder >>>>>> >>>>>> Here I can explain with the example >>>>>> >>>>>> fields: { >>>>>> provider: { >>>>>> readonly: true >>>>>> }, >>>>>> name: { >>>>>> name: { >>>>>> name: 'name', >>>>>> label: 'Name' >>>>>> }, >>>>>> updatable: false, >>>>>> validation: function () { >>>>>> } >>>>>> }, >>>>>> version: { >>>>>> name: { >>>>>> label: 'Version' >>>>>> } >>>>>> }, >>>>>> createdtime: { >>>>>> hidden: true >>>>>> *client_side_validation* : { >>>>>> >>>>>> "name" : "*time_validator*", >>>>>> >>>>>> "params" : { "K1" : V1 , "K2" : v2 }, >>>>>> >>>>>> "sucess_message" : "validation sucess", >>>>>> >>>>>> "error_message" : "validation unsucess" >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> } >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> And the custom validator method in validations.js file >>>>>> >>>>>> jQuery.validator.addMethod(name,method[,message]) >>>>>> >>>>>> jQuery.validator.addMethod("*time_validator*",method,message); >>>>>> >>>>>> So when the function call by proper validation name It will be >>>>>> validate the field which satisfy the validations regarding to that >>>>>> function >>>>>> and will give proper success message or error message. >>>>>> >>>>>> please find the references about jQuery validator[1] >>>>>> [1] - http://jqueryvalidation.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Please share your thoughts. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> *Thank You.* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Rajeenthini Satkunam* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Associate Software Engineer | WSO2* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *E:rajeenth...@wso2.com <rajeenth...@wso2.com>* >>>>>> >>>>>> *M :+94770832823 <%2B94770832823> * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Architecture mailing list >>>>>> Architecture@wso2.org >>>>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Architecture mailing list >>>>> Architecture@wso2.org >>>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Thank You.* >>>> >>>> *Rajeenthini Satkunam* >>>> >>>> *Associate Software Engineer | WSO2* >>>> >>>> >>>> *E:rajeenth...@wso2.com <rajeenth...@wso2.com>* >>>> >>>> *M :+94770832823 <%2B94770832823> * >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Thank You.* >>> >>> *Rajeenthini Satkunam* >>> >>> *Associate Software Engineer | WSO2* >>> >>> >>> *E:rajeenth...@wso2.com <rajeenth...@wso2.com>* >>> >>> *M :+94770832823 <%2B94770832823> * >>> >>> >> > > > -- > > *Thank You.* > > *Rajeenthini Satkunam* > > *Associate Software Engineer | WSO2* > > > *E:rajeenth...@wso2.com <rajeenth...@wso2.com>* > > *M :+94770832823 <%2B94770832823> * > > -- *Thank You.* *Rajeenthini Satkunam* *Associate Software Engineer | WSO2* *E:rajeenth...@wso2.com <rajeenth...@wso2.com>* *M :+94770832823 <%2B94770832823> *
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list Architecture@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
