I've written a proposal for what Commons Validator 2.0 xml might look like
here:
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/validator/validator_2_0_0_proposal.dtd

It's an attempt to simplify things as well as make validator more flexible
for web and non-web usage.  Comments, criticisms, and suggestions are
welcome!

David

--- William Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I posted his on the users list when I probably should have posted it
> here.
> So here' the repeat from those not lurking on both lists.
> 
> I've create an enhancement on Bugzilla relating to this post at
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32217.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Now that I've had a year or so or heavy Struts use, I've come to believe
> that (IMHO) validation within Struts is a little less clear and concise
> than
> it could otherwise be with a few small changes.
> 
> Currently, validation is defined by specifying a true/false value for
> the
> 'validate' attribute for an ActionMapping, and which validation to
> perform
> is defined by either the ActionMapping's (Form) 'name' or 'path'
> attribute
> depending on whether the Form extends from ValidatorActionForm or not.
> 
> It seems to me that it would be clearer to introduce a 'validation'
> attribute into ActionMapping which defines the Id of the validation (if
> any)
> to perform. This would supercede the 'validate' attribute and removes
> the
> responsibility of identifying the validation target from the combination
> of
> the (Form) 'name' attribute and the ActionForm inheritance hierarchy.
> 
> It also allows all the benefits of using (currently) using a
> ValidatorActionForm to validate based on ActionMapping path, plus those
> of
> using Form named mappings, while also allowing the freedom to mix, match
> and
> reuse validations across ActionMappings.
> 
> It should be easy to make this new addition entirely backward
> compatible. Ie
> If 'validation' attribute is not found then look for current attributes
> and
> follow the existing validation path, at least for some deprecation
> period.
> 
> Specifying no validation for an ActionMapping would be as simple as
> "validation='None'" with a validation entry for now speciying no fields.
> 
> Once this refactoring has been achieved, it also opens up the
> possibility of
> further enhancing the existing validation mechanism. Ie Allowing
> validations
> to contain other validations etc. Though I would first start by
> simplifying
> the validation definitions, which I also find somewhat non-intuitive at
> times.
> 
> Anyway, just my 2 cents.
> 
> I'd like to thank the Struts development community for a pretty decent
> framework, especially those worked on Tiles - it really rocks!
> 
> William Ferguson
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com 
 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to