Yeah, open an issue, and I'll carry on for now ;) regards,
Martin On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shall I open a Jira issue on this and solve it later, or were you planning on reworking it now? Quite honestly, I'm fine with fixing it on Monday (or whenver I next have time) and letting you close another 100 issues :-) On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd put the check inside the validate method itself. > > This is what I've done in my own custom validators that have > interdependent attributes. > > On 9/21/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry, yes, I meant validator as well. Well, at least the property > > setting - getting - restoreState and saveState parts are generated. So > > where would you incorporate the check? > > > > Maybe we should just get rid of the detailMessage at all, and use > > message instead. > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In case it's not clear, by "component" I really mean validator in this context. > > > > > > On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/21/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hmmm... Why not provide a custom Facelets-Tag for this? > > > > > > > > Because that's the wrong approach to fixing the problem. > > > > > > > > > The thing is that also the component will be generated - so we can't > > > > > really have much custom code there, right? > > > > > > > > Why would the component be generated? That's where all of the > > > > component-specific logic is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > Courses in English and German > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > >
-- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
