there is a reason why it is just an add-on ;) and yes, if you would do it with the jsf2-api, it would be a bit easier. but you can use this add-on also for jsf 1.x and some users who don't like to use seam are happy with it. however, i just mentioned it as an example to show that cdi isn't needed to implement such a functionality.
regards, gerhard 2012/12/17 Lincoln Baxter, III <[email protected]> > Also, note that the use-cases for <s:validateForm> and the latter example > are different in their usage. IMO, <s:validateForm> is much more > declarative and simple than the example provided from extval. > > Just write a validator and attach it like you would normal to a component > in the view, wherever you want to use it. You can also re-use > form-validators using this method, instead of using some (in my opinion) > strange view-filtering logic in the FormValidator annotation. > > <s:validateForm> is/was one of the most well recieved feature of Seam > Faces, and I think it deserves serious consideration. Can you do form > validation other ways? absolutely, but this way is pretty compelling based > on the feedback we got. It also ties in very normally with the way in which > JSF handles validation and components, which is not something that I can > speak about with regard to extval, but I can say that seam faces does this > nicely. > > ~Lincoln > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Thomas Andraschko < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Please do not mix both :) > > We had the discussion about commons bv constrains. s:validateForm is > > completely different compared to bv constraints. > > s:validateForm does not fit the project for common bv constraints. > > > > 2012/12/17 Karl Kildén <[email protected]> > > > > > Looks really nice I understand finally :-) > > > > > > In retrospect I don't know why I didn't check the docs myself, probably > > > because I read most of the discussion on the phone to begin with. > > > > > > I then agree with the many suggestions regarding doing it as a parallel > > > project. Perhaps that module could have a sub module for CDI users > that > > > included producers and such. > > > > > > Best regards / Karl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > > > > > > > hi karl, > > > > > > > > it's implemented via a producer - see [1]. > > > > but you don't really need cdi for it - see e.g. [2]. > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > gerhard > > > > > > > > [1] http://s.apache.org/ury > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://os890.blogspot.co.at/2010/06/multi-field-form-validation-with-jsr.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > As far as i understand, validateAll just validates all components > but > > > you > > > > > can't use custom logic. > > > > > > > > > > Checkout the seam docu here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://docs.jboss.org/seam/3/faces/latest/reference/en-US/html/components.html > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Karl Kildén <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > Hrmm still not sure I understand. First off didn't Pete just say > it > > > was > > > > > > just a JSF-validator? It also sounds and reads just like > > validateAll > > > > from > > > > > > omnifaces? > > > > > > > > > > > > What is lacking that you would like to see solved by CDI? And is > > it a > > > > > > natural fit for CDI extensions rather then BV / JSF extensions? > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards / Karl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they are nice but i can't see a replacement for s:validateForm. > > > > > > > IMO s:validateForm is really a simple solution for cross-field > > > > > > validation, > > > > > > > which is CDI based. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > THomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Karl Kildén <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well these are the validators from omnifaces as per my > previous > > > > > > > > recommendation: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - RequiredCheckboxValidator< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/RequiredCheckboxValidator.xhtml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - validateAll< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateAll.xhtml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - validateAllOrNone< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateAllOrNone.xhtml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - validateEqual< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateEqual.xhtml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - validateOne< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOne.xhtml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - validateOneOrMore< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOneOrMore.xhtml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - validateOneOrNone< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOneOrNone.xhtml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - validateOrder< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOrder.xhtml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - validateUnique > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateUnique.xhtml > > > > > > > > >Best > > > > > > > > regards / Karl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PrimeFaces doesn't have such a component/utility. > > > > > > > > > Also AFAICS it's based on CDI, so IMO DeltaSpike is a good > > > place > > > > > for > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Jason Porter <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Pete Muir < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 17 Dec 2012, at 08:55, Gerhard Petracek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi karl, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1 apache myfaces (extval) doesn't implement jsr 303 > > > (e.g. > > > > > > apache > > > > > > > > > > > > bval implements it) > > > > > > > > > > > > #2 there is no agreement that ds is only backend > > oriented > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Karl Kildén <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Thomas, fellow user here. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> BV is as you may know specified in JSR-303. It has > > great > > > > > > > > > > > implementations by > > > > > > > > > > > >> myfaces and hibernate that you can find easily. Thus > > > this > > > > > will > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > >> implemented in deltaspike afaik. However providing > > some > > > > > common > > > > > > > > > > > constraints > > > > > > > > > > > >> beyond the specification sounds like a good idea. > Note > > > > that > > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > mean > > > > > > > > > > > >> while @Email is almost trivial to implement yourself > > if > > > > you > > > > > > > search > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > >> little. JSR-303 is highly extensible just like CDI. > > The > > > > > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > >> choose might have it as an extra already. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> For frontend extras I can't say I see an obvious > home > > in > > > > > > > > deltaspike > > > > > > > > > > > >> (someone correct me if I am wrong about this). But I > > > think > > > > > for > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > > > >> Deltaspike is more backend oriented. I recommend > > having > > > a > > > > > look > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > omnifaces > > > > > > > > > > > >> that already provide several great custom > > jsf-validators > > > > and > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > open > > > > > > > > > > > >> request for users to ask for additional ones. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> best regards / Karl > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2012/12/16 Thomas Andraschko < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is there a roadmap available for all upcoming > > features? > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Will there also be a BV module in the future? Will > it > > > > also > > > > > > > > include > > > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > >>> commons constraints like Email? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, I think this could be a good thing for a parallel > > > > project > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > DeltaSpike actually - a library of BV constraints not > > > branded > > > > > by > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > > > > impl. I've cc'd Emmanuel, spec lead for BV, to see if > he > > > has > > > > > any > > > > > > > > plans > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > such a thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What about the Seam s:validateForm? IMO it's a > simple > > > way > > > > > for > > > > > > > > cross > > > > > > > > > > > field > > > > > > > > > > > >>> validation. Will this be added in future releases? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not actually a BV validator, but a JSF > > validator. I > > > > > know > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > working on JSF stuff for DeltaSpike atm, perhaps this > is > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > could add to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this something that belongs in DeltaSpike, or should > it > > be > > > > in > > > > > a > > > > > > > JSF > > > > > > > > > > component library? I know RichFaces has something very > > > > similar, I > > > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > > > PrimeFaces does as well (haven't looked for a while) and > I > > > have > > > > > no > > > > > > > idea > > > > > > > > > > about other component libraries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> How can i contribue to DeltaSpike? I could do some > > > > smaller > > > > > > > tasks > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > >>> problems. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I also implemented constraints like > > > > > > EqualsExpression("#{...}"). > > > > > > > > > Maybe > > > > > > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > > > > > > >>> could be useful for other users, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This page should help - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://deltaspike.staging.apache.org/deltaspike/community.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Jason Porter > > > > > > > > > > http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > http://twitter.com/lightguardjp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Software Engineer > > > > > > > > > > Open Source Advocate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP key id: 926CCFF5 > > > > > > > > > > PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Lincoln Baxter, III > http://ocpsoft.org > "Simpler is better." >
