Sorry about that. Should be good now. ^Fingers Crossed^
On May 22, 7:53 am, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Can't apply the patch, see comment on ticket.
>
> Jörn
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ticket #2908 created and patch attached. Let me know if I should
> > change anything.
>
> > On May 19, 1:57 pm, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> Just use "messages" for embedding messages as metadata. The odds of
> >> adding a method "messages" are extremely low, and once its released,
> >> I'll update the docs accordingly.
>
> >> Jörn
>
> >> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > -> "Avoiding the conflict between a method "messages" and those actual
> >> > messages should be easy enough. "
>
> >> > Should we plan on supporting a simulatanious "message" method and
> >> > custom messages in metadata?
>
> >> > As stated, I'm still climbing the learning curve :). Before I
> >> > implement this I just want to make sure your not envisioning a better
> >> > way. The strait forward check I'm planning on is to see if validator
> >> > has any "message" methods defined, if it does it will treat "messages"
> >> > in meta as a rule method, else it will treat it as a custom message
> >> > object. This check, however, means a dev can't simultaneously have a
> >> > method named "message" and still use custom messages in metadata. A
> >> > minor, but strange requirement. Is this ok?
>
> >> > I was trying to figure out a way to compare the message object in meta
> >> > to the "message" rule signature. If the method sig matches it will be
> >> > treated as rule metadata, else custom message metadata. Don't know if
> >> > we can guarantee repeatable results with that since rule method sigs
> >> > can match the custom message object in rare cases. Leaving us with an
> >> > even more rare, but stranger requirement.
>
> >> > I'm probably missing something so i figured I'd just ask what you had
> >> > in mind that was "easy enough".
>
> >> > Thanks
>
> >> > On May 16, 9:33 am, Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Ah, agreed. I'll make these changes and send in a ticket.
>
> >> >> On May 15, 4:20 pm, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > How about this?
>
> >> >> > meta: default
> >> >> > class="{required:true,minlength:2,messages:{required:'Enter
> >> >> > this!',minlength:'Way to short'}}"
>
> >> >> > meta: "validation"
> >> >> > class="{validation:{required:true,minlength:2,messages:{required:'Enter
> >> >> > this!',minlength:'Way to short'}}}"
>
> >> >> > No need to change the meta-option that way. The code reading the
> >> >> > messages just checks for a messages-property within the metadata.
> >> >> > Avoiding the conflict between a method "messages" and those actual
> >> >> > messages should be easy enough.
>
> >> >> > Contributions are welcome in any format, a ticket on dev.jquery.com
> >> >> > with a diff attached is the preferred way.
>
> >> >> > Jörn
>
> >> >> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > Ok I have a first cut done. elements can now have metadata like:
> >> >> > > <input id="cname" name="name"
> >> >> > > class="{rules:{required:true,minlength:
> >> >> > > 2}, messages:{required:'Enter this!', minlength:'Way to short!'}}"
> >> >> > > />
>
> >> >> > > Quick question though. Which do you prefer?
>
> >> >> > > 1)$("#Form").validate({meta:"rules", metaMessages:"messages"});
> >> >> > > 2)$("#Form").validate({meta:{rules:"rules", messages:"messages"}});
>
> >> >> > > I like 2, but it changes the existing API.
>
> >> >> > > How do you want the changes?
>
> >> >> > > On May 14, 1:04 pm, Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > >> Thanks for the help on getting started. I'd already started wading
> >> >> > >> through the source so you definitely saved me some time. I'm not
> >> >> > >> totally comfortable with Jquery yet but I'm getting there :). I'll
> >> >> > >> give this a go and see what happens. Should I just reply to this
> >> >> > >> thread to contribute/ask questions? or is there a better way?
>
> >> >> > >> On May 14, 12:07 pm, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> > >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > >> > It isn'T supported, yet. You could help getting it into the
> >> >> > >> > plugin by
> >> >> > >> > trying to implement it yourself, and contributing it back.
>
> >> >> > >> > To get started, take a look at the defaultMessage-method.
> >> >> > >> > Currently it
> >> >> > >> > looks for custom messages specified via options, then for the
> >> >> > >> > title
> >> >> > >> > attribute, then for default messages. You can access metadata via
> >> >> > >> > $(element).metadata().
> >> >> > >> > To be able to throw rules and messages together, you'd use the
> >> >> > >> > meta-option to "namespace" rules, eg.
> >> >> > >> > class="{rules:{required:true,email:true}, messages:
> >> >> > >> > {required:"yo",
> >> >> > >> > email:"no"}", then $(...).validate({ meta: "rules" })
>
> >> >> > >> > Hope this helps to get started.
>
> >> >> > >> > Jörn
>
> >> >> > >> > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >> > >> > > Hi,
>
> >> >> > >> > > I'm trying to build a web framework utilizing the great work
> >> >> > >> > > thats
> >> >> > >> > > already been done on the validation plugin. I'm trying to use
> >> >> > >> > > metadata
> >> >> > >> > > to specify my rules. I'm having a problem overriding the
> >> >> > >> > > default
> >> >> > >> > > messages for multiple rules via metadata. It appears as
> >> >> > >> > > though I can
> >> >> > >> > > only specify one generic message for all my rules on a given
> >> >> > >> > > element
> >> >> > >> > > using the title attribute.
>
> >> >> > >> > > Is there a way use metadata to override error messages that
> >> >> > >> > > I'm
> >> >> > >> > > overlooking? If not can this be added? Additionally, do we
> >> >> > >> > > have to be
> >> >> > >> > > restricted to using the title attribute? Could we use custom
> >> >> > >> > > attributes? It seems like a common scenario and is supported
> >> >> > >> > > by the
> >> >> > >> > > validate(option) method.
>
> >> >> > >> > > Thanks for any direction/feedback on this!
>
> >> >> > >> > > Keep up the great work!
> >> >> > >> >> Dane
