Nope, it's just the asterisk. Backend validation is handled in the action's validate method or validation XML.
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013, struts wrote: > I see -- I was under the mistaken impression that "requiredLabel" before > 2.3.12 defined -- at the field level -- which character would be used to > indicate that a field is required. Similar to how "labelSeparator" works. > I see now that the character used is hard-coded to an asterisk, and that > "requiredLabel" is relatively new. > > I don't understand what you mean by "requiredLabel makes more sense since > that's all it does." If you set "requiredLabel=true" on tag in Struts > 2.3.15.1, then it does more than show an asterisk -- it also causes the > back-end to enforce validation, doesn't it? I know that I'm "stuck" in > pre-WW-3908 thinking due to it working one way for years, but to me > "required=true" makes more sense to cause three things to happen: > 1) An asterisk to appear next to a field (depending on theme) > 2) For the back-end to validate that the field is not-blank or null > 3) For the front-end to enforce that the field is filled out via html5 > 'required="required"' output, possibly dependent on theme > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Steven Benitez > <steven.beni...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>wrote: > > > I already updated to requiredLabel, so I vote we stick with that. :) > > > > Besides, requiredLabel actually makes more sense, since that's all it > does. > > You could invert the logic you proposed so that if a required attribute > is > > detected with a value of anything but "false", you consider that to > trigger > > requiredLabel="true". At least that way you are driving the label off the > > client validation, rather than the other way around. > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM, struts <str...@rgm.nu <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > > So as not to pollute the JIRAs too much with speculation or suggestions > > > that haven't been thought out, I'd like to have a discussion about the > > > "required" attribute here on the list. > > > > > > I propose that we revert the changes made in WW-3908, namely -- turn > > > "requiredLabel" back into "required." Then, to support the html5 > > required > > > boolean attribute, change "themes/simple/text.ftl" to check <#if > > > parameters.required?default(false)> required="required" </#if>. > > > > > > This is a backwards compatible change (from the themes/simple/text.ftl > > > perspective). It is also backwards compatible with templates made > before > > > Struts 2.3.12. > > > > > > It has a side effect that modern browsers will enforce client-side > > > validation for text fields like this: > > > <@s.textfield name="whatever" required=true /> > > > > > > I believe this side effect to be universally beneficial, but I could be > > > wrong about that. > > > > > > CONS: > > > > > > * Some folks have already gone and updated their templates to change > > > "required" to "requiredLabel." These folks would have to go back and > > > revert that, unless logic was put in to see if requiredLabel was one of > > > "true" "false" or other. :-/ On the other hand, this frees up the > > > "requiredLabel" attribute to be a String again, and allow per-field > > > overriding of the default asterisk (*) character. > > > > > > * (maybe) Some folks may not want clients to enforce "required" in > forms. > > > > > > PROS: > > > > > > * html5 required attribute, being specific to the way a tag is > rendered, > > > should be handled in themes where rendering logic exists. > > > > > > * Avoids "required=false" problem in 2.3.15.1, which confusingly does > > cause > > > modern browsers to require a field. For this reason alone, "required" > > > should not be a dynamic attribute. > > > > > > * Backwards compatible with pre-2.3.12 templates. > > > > > > * (subjective) Tag usage feels more natural -- "required" sounds like a > > > boolean, "requiredLabel" sounds like a String. > > > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > > > --rgm > > > > > >
