Nacho, I had a quick look at #30955 and your patch and agree it looks like in needs fixing. At this point my itch is to just get a 1.1.4 version out which just includes bug #29452 so that I can then fix Struts. The fix for bug #29452 is v. simple and so the risk is low - bug # 30955 is more involved though and so IMO we should do that in the HEAD for the 1.2.0 version.
I will try to find some time for it (unless someone beats me to it), but at this point I can't say when. Niall ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nacho G. Mac Dowell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [Validator] Next Release > I would like to address the importance of bug #30955 > (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30955). Currently, > form definition processing isn't working properly. I was thinking of > changing severity to major to raise attention. Please do take a look and > tell me what you think. > > >I doubt form inheritance has been tested completely since it hasn't been > >included in a release yet. > > > I have extensively used form inheritance (I sent the patch). If you take > a close look at the changes involved you'd notice that special care was > taken to minimize impact on the rest of the code. I beleive form > inheritance could take Validator one step forward. If #30955 gets solved > it would even get more useful. > > I know that it is out of the scope of this mailing list but I would like > to say that using validator with struts is sort of painful when using > DynaValidatorForm. You have at least 4 hard coded parameter definitions > (struts-config.xml, validation.xml, the view and the action). I have > seen that the preferred direction for validator is not form validation > but bean validation. It would be nice though if we could have a single > form definition with its simple commons-validator validations. What do > you think? Should I post this in the struts mailing list? > > Nacho G. Mac Dowell > > PD: I am using a different email address since it's the only one I can > use from work. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
