Hi Rudy,
Yes, I know EXTVAL :-) However I don't like that I have to annotate one field to reference another. My feeling is, that, when I am able to annotate a method with x parameters, the stuff is all together and I can see all values that I need for my validation. Probably my feature should go into EXTVAL instead into DeltaSpike ;-) Cheers, Arne BTW: Is it possible in EXTVAL to specify cross-field validation with more than two fields? Am 28.03.13 10:39 schrieb "Rudy De Busscher" unter <rdebussc...@gmail.com>: >@method validation > >As I used the Extval features for these kind of situations and wrote >extensions for it to enhance the crossfield validation (like your example >of the password, see also [1] ) >I'm very interested to have this in DeltaSpike/help with such a feature >(if >you need it) in DeltaSpike > >regards >Rudy > >[1] = >http://jsfcorner.blogspot.be/2011/09/cross-field-validation-with-jsf-and.h >tml > >On 28 March 2013 10:31, Arne Limburg <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de> >wrote: > >> Imho when we think about JSF validation we don't need to mimic existing >> features of JSF 2, but we have to see where features are missing. >> >> I.e. BVAL 1.1 will contain method-validation, but JSF completely missed >>to >> integrate it. This is where we should fill the gap. >> >> I am thinking about something like >> >> <h:form> >> <f:validateMethod value="#{myBean.updatePassword(myBean.password, >> myBean.repeatedPassword)}" /> >> <h:inputSecret value="#{myBean.password}" /> >> <h:inputSecret value="#{myBean.repeatedPassword}" /> >> </h:form> >> >> where updatePassword is validated in the PROCESS_VALIDATION phase (with >> the local values of both fields) and ideally instead of calling >> MyBean.setPassword and MyBean.setRepeatedPassword in the UPDATE_MODEL >> phase it should call MyBean.updatePasswordŠ >> >> Such feature would improve cross-field validation enormously. >> >> WDYT? >> >> Regards, >> Arne >> >> P.S.: I just prototyped the feature and it basically worked also I am >>not >> sure about the design (in my prototype f:validateMethod is a JSF >> Component...) >> >> Am 25.03.13 22:20 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter <strub...@yahoo.de>: >> >> >with JSF-2 this is now almost obsolete, isn't? >> >JSF-2 has <f:validateBean> which works perfectly fine. >> > >> >LieGrue, >> >strub >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >> >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >> Cc: >> >> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 5:31 PM >> >> Subject: Re: DeltaSpike Roadmap >> >> >> >> Are you sure? PrimeFaces does not have one. I only know richfaces' >> >> graphValidator and it's IMO not that easy and cool as s:validateForm. >> >> >> >> 2013/3/25 John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >>> I believe all of the major JSF component libraries support some >>type >> >>>of >> >>> form validation using BV. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Thomas Andraschko < >> >>> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > Any news about s:validateForm? >> >>> > As i said, it's great feature of seam3 and would perfectly fit DS >> >> (IMO). >> >>> > >> >>> > I could also add it to DS if no one have enough time... :) >> >>> > >> >>> > 2012/12/17 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> >> >>> > >> >>> > > 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 <lincolnbax...@gmail.com> >> >>> > > >> >>> > > > 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 < >> >>> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> 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 <karl.kil...@gmail.com> >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > > 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 >> >> <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > 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-js >>>>r >> . >> >>html >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Thomas Andraschko >> >> <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > 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 >> >> <karl.kil...@gmail.com> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > 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 >> >> <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > 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 >> >> <karl.kil...@gmail.com> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > Well these are the >> >> validators from omnifaces as per my >> >>> > > > previous >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > recommendation: >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > - >> >> RequiredCheckboxValidator< >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/RequiredCheckb >> >>oxValidator.xhtml >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > - validateAll< >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateAll.xh >> >>tml >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > - >> >> validateAllOrNone< >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateAllOrN >> >>one.xhtml >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > - validateEqual< >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >>>>https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateEqua >>>>l >> . >> >>xhtml >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > - validateOne< >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOne.xh >> >>tml >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > - >> >> validateOneOrMore< >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOneOrM >> >>ore.xhtml >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > - >> >> validateOneOrNone< >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOneOrN >> >>one.xhtml >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > - validateOrder< >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >>>>https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOrde >>>>r >> . >> >>xhtml >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > - validateUnique >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > < >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateUnique >> >>.xhtml >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >Best >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > regards / Karl >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Thomas >> >> Andraschko < >> >>> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <lightguard...@gmail.com> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, >> >> 2012 at 4:54 AM, Pete Muir < >> >>> > > > > pm...@redhat.com >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > 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 <karl.kil...@gmail.com> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> 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 < >> >>> > > > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>> 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." >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >>
