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]