DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38749>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38749 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-02-22 15:07 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > On second thought, I think we may want to mark this as INVALID depending on your > response. This is not a problem with the classes, but with the lack of > Validation. You should put validation on "method" parameter - does Struts allow > validation on parameters which are not explicitly defined in forms? Yes (in answer to your first question), the alert box does pop up. Sorry for not saying so implicitly originally. Yes, I could put validation on the form. That's a possibility which hadn't occured to me. It's not going to be trivial to validate the field though, since I'm using LookupDispatchAction, so the legal parameter values are in the application's resource bundle, and the corresponding keys are already in the Map used by the Lookup. So if I do write a simple validator, I'm going to lose the i18n abilities, and if I write a more robust one, then I'm reimplementing what LookupDispatchAction does anyway. And on top of that, it puts another requirement on the user (to explicitly write the validation). Wouldn't it be more robust to just not echo the dodgy value? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
