Oh, and I think I now have a better understanding of why David wanted me to add this to the Record module.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Oliver Lambert <olambo...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Marius, > To try and answer your question, I had to go and look at the Record code > in > more detail. I hadn't recently written the Binder Validator, so it wasn't > designed to be > complementary to anything else (however, some of the naming and methodology > is very > similar in both sets of code). > > What I found. > 1) MetaRecord.validate === Binder.validate > 2) Field.validators === BoundObj.validations > 3) Field.validationFunction === Validator.validate > 4) List[FieldError] === List[ValidationError] > > Can I get rid of Binder Validation and just use Record/Field validation? > It certainly looks like I should try. However, I might have to add/change > some of the original Lift code. > For instance, I might want to add an errorType (with a default, so no code > is broken) to FieldError. > I might also want to move/change Field.validationFunction so its a little > more > like my Validator,with an errorType and toString (When I print my > validators, the errorType give a little > information on what they do, rather than just telling me I have a function > - I also filter using > the errorType) > > Other things of interest that I found. > > Could a Binder be a MetaRecord? There are definitely some similarities. > Binder holds a set of > immutable objects which can be an advantage, but MetaRecord can talk to > databases which is > kind of useful at times. > > Could a BoundObj be a Field. Same distinction as above. A BoundObj[T] may > hold a reference to a string value > that is completely invalid. I'm not sure I see this in Field. > > cheers > Oliver > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:22 PM, marius d. <marius.dan...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> I see ... still the question remains. What are we going to do with two >> validators? I'd like to understand the principles of your addition >> (... I know I should have dig into the code but I don't have much time >> now). >> >> I'd like to understand as I said previously if we have redundant >> validators or complementary functionality so that people to not get >> confused. >> >> I'm not trying at all to be negative or anything, just trying to >> understand the value added. >> >> Br's, >> Marius >> >> On May 29, 11:01 am, Oliver Lambert <olambo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I'm aware of S.error and my ValidationError uses it when I'm ready to >> show >> > errors. I've briefly looked at the ValidationFunction and the thing I >> might >> > stumble on is the errorType which I rely on. >> > >> > I may be able to refactor the code to use List[FieldError] as I don't >> think >> > I rely on errorType at this point. >> > >> > I'll have a go at modifying the Binder code. >> > >> > cheers >> > Oliver >> > >> > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Marius <marius.dan...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Oliver, >> > >> > > I very briefly looked on your code and I saw that you have your own >> > > validator there. How would that play with the existent validattors >> > > that Record has where each field has a list of : >> > >> > > type ValidationFunction = MyType => Box[Node] >> > >> > > Note that current MetaRecord's validator after evaluating the >> > > validators for each field it yields a List[FieldError] which can be >> > > easily naturally used with S.error function to show the error messages >> > > etc. >> > >> > > Is there a redundancy or complementary functionality? >> > >> > > Br's, >> > > Marius >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
