Yes I guess that would be better.
Niall
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eddie Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: ActionForm.validateForm(...) to replace
ActionForm.validate(...)
> Wouldn't it be kind of us to at least return a boolean indicator of
whether
> there were any validation issues? I suppose we could check the
> ValidationContext once the validateForm method returns, but it does seem a
> nice convenience to return a boolean indicator ...
>
> Eddie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Niall Pemberton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:12 PM
> Subject: Re: ActionForm.validateForm(...) to replace
> ActionForm.validate(...)
>
>
> >I wasn't proposing changing the validation model at all - but with the
> > advent of Chain we could deprecate the validate(mapping, request) method
> > in
> > favour of a validate(Context) method in ActionForm. This would provide
> > more
> > flexibility and cause less confusion because the method name has stayed
> > the
> > same. I would also suggest that the new validate method shouldn't return
> > anything, with the ActionForm being responsible for sticking the
messages
> > in
> > the Context. That way if/when thing move to commons resources we won't
> > face
> > the same problem again.
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Germuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Niall Pemberton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Struts
> > Developers
> > List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: ActionForm.validateForm(...) to replace
> > ActionForm.validate(...)
> >
> >
> >> At 8:41 PM +0000 12/3/04, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >> >Wouldn't it be better to get rid of this in 1.3 with the move to
Chain?
> >> >Doesn't everything get thrown up in the air and re-defined at that
point
> >> >including Action's being deprecated in favour of objects that just
> > implement
> >> >the Command interface?
> >>
> >> I guess I had figured on 1.3 being more transitional than that. But,
> >> even if one were to use a command instead of an action, we haven't
> >> talked (yet) about changing the validation model.
> >>
> >> I haven't heard anyone propose a major change to the model of "Struts
> >> populates an ActionForm and calls a method on it which tests its
> >> validity and is able to return a bundle of messages explaining
> >> validation errors if there are any." My preference would be to defer
> >> any changes that dramatic until 1.4, although with the chain, it
> >> would be a little easier for people to prototype those kinds in the
> >> sandbox or on SourceForge (or whereever...)
> >>
> >> Perhaps it is worth trying to come up with a more future proof
> >> implementation, though. This isn't a burning issue -- clearly people
> >> are confused about the ActionMessages/ActionErrors situation, but I
> >> think that's "under control." By future-proof, I mean something that
> >> passes in the resources-equivalent of ActionMessages, and possibly
> >> which passes in something like a "ValidationContext" which would
> >> eliminate the explicit dependency on HttpServletRequest.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Niall
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "Martin Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 7:59 PM
> >> >Subject: Re: ActionForm.validateForm(...) to replace
> >> >ActionForm.validate(...)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> We did just get Commons Resources promoted out of the sandbox, and
> >> >> I'm
> >> >> hopeful that we'll get that puppy released soon. Finally!
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Martin Cooper
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:37:38 -0800 (PST), David Graham
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > We didn't do it earlier because we wanted to use
commons-resources
> > for
> >> >> > message passing. That hasn't happened so we may as well add the
> >> >> > validateForm() method and deprecate validate().
> >> >> >
> >> >> > David
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --- Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > In order to push forward on full deprecation of ActionErrors, I
> >> >> > > propose adding the following method to ActionForm:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > public ActionMessages validateForm(ActionMapping mapping,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> HttpServletRequest
> >> >request) {
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > return validate(mapping, request);
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > }
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > and then changing one line in the Request Processing chain:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > ActionMessages errors = form.validate(mapping,
request);
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > ActionMessages errors = form.validateForm(mapping,
> > request);
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I'm not sure now why we haven't done this earlier. Someone
> > suggested
> >> >> > > it on one of the lists a while ago and it seemed clear once I
saw
> > it,
> >> >> > > but I haven't had time to do anything about it.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > My inclination is to do this only on the 1.3 (HEAD) branch, and
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > make the change in RequestProcessor.java even though it is
slated
> > for
> >> >> > > obsolescence, and then also to make the change in
> >> >> > > o.a.s.chain.AbstractValidateActionForm (which actually still
uses
> >> >> > > ActionErrors, actually.)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > If it didn't seem strange that it hasn't been done already, I
> > might
> >> >> > > have just gone ahead and done it without raising the
question --
> > so
> >> >> > > I'm wondering if I'm missing something?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Joe
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > --
> >> >> > > Joe Germuska
> >> >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> > > http://blog.germuska.com
> >> >> > > "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > __________________________________________________
> >> >> > Do You Yahoo!?
> >> >> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >> >> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Joe Germuska
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> http://blog.germuska.com
> >> "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0449-1, 12/02/2004
> Tested on: 12/3/2004 8:49:54 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 2000-2004 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
