Hi No problem, I'll look at it later today, maybe tomorrow at the latest.
Regards, Noel. Greg Brown wrote: > Hi Noel, > > While attempting to add a validator example to the Kitchen Sink demo, I > noticed a couple of things that still need a bit more work: > > 1) The validation classes need more Javadoc. I'll admit that we're pretty lax > about method Javadoc a lot of the time, but we do try to make sure that every > class has at least a minimal description. Otherwise, the documentation tends > to look a bit unprofessional. > > 2) Each concrete validator should have a no-arg constructor and bean > properties for configuring its behavior so it can be used in WTKX. For > example, RegexTextValidator should have a "pattern" property: > > Pattern getPattern() > void setPattern(Pattern pattern) > void setPattern(String pattern) > > The string setter allows us to use it from WTKX like this: > > <TextInput> > <validator> > <validation:RegexTextValidator pattern="[0-9]"/> > </validator> > </TextInput> > > WTKX automatically handles setters for primitive types (via BeanDictionary), > so you don't need to provide String overloads for those. However, any > non-primitive setters will require a String overload. > > We'd very much like to get these updates in before we release version 1.1. Do > you think you will have time to do it in the very near future? > > Thanks, > Greg > > >
