In the thread where I gave the inline validation example, I also described string-based parameters, much like what Sean described. I wasn't recommending inline validation (if I recall correctly, I recommended against it, for many of the same reasons Sean listed), merely illustrating two different approaches for doing your validation. I much prefer a validate() method separate from the individual getters and setters.
cheers, barneyb On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:42:38 -0600, Dawson, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As usual, you have helped tremendously. > > I was using in-line, procedural validation (similar to one of Barney B's > example), but I didn't really consider having the bean validate itself. > I'm going to spend the rest of the afternoon building in a validate > method to my bean and see how it makes me feel. I like how you > explained it. > > Thanks, Sean! > M!ke > -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 9 invites. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:189173 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
