[gwt-contrib] Re: Flurry of Data binding threads
Going to stick my nose in here a bit: I certainly believe that this is all one ball of wax. I /know/ that the system that I've been working on can be used to modify the data. I know it breaks the JSR-303 paradigm so I've left it alone. The fundamental difference is that I'm expecting some output from the process. A lack of output signifies that everything worked. Also I'm not sure how much other metadata frameworks are putting in to pure JVM mode operation. I'm currently investigating mechanisms for cutting down on code overhead because creating a validator for each class has proven to be large. Maybe what I need to do (and will investigate) is creating a gimpy version of the annotations and other metadata on each method and then packaging that to be consumed by a validator. Or maybe not, still working on that. In any case I'd desperately like to merge functionality with someone else and build a larger user base and feature set. I'm not married to the JSR-303 or anything but it seemed like a good place to start. I agree with Emily's view of the world and I agree mostly with Ray. I'm a little fuzzy on the work being done on UI templates and I'm not sure about the compile-time emphasis. As I've mentioned before I need things to work on both sides of the "divide". I'd love to see some work put in to code templates that work through dynamic generation at compile time and at run time. I'm sure that most people don't want me relying on constant introspection to get the job done just for performance reasons. Also the HasValue (or HasData) is a must. I thought I came up with that in the shower this morning. I must have read it somewhere here first right? Anyway I'm looking forward to what is coming in the days ahead. Shameless plug: http://code.google.com/p/gwt-validation/ Chris Ruffalo On Oct 9, 4:15 pm, "Emily Crutcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To give you an idea of where I am coming from, here is my understanding of > the world: > > *Metadata Systems, comprising Models and Controllers* > xforms, Ian's databinding system, Arthur's validation system, gwt team's > upcoming proposal for data management: > > All part of the larger metadata, binding, code generation class of systems. > Hopefully all of these can eventually use the same basic concepts and it > going to be a huge undertaking to get it right. In fact, so huge of one that > the gwt team has decided to duck for now and are trying very hard not to get > involved in these discusions at the current time. > > *Widget bridge classes, part of the application's view.* > Classes used to expose the application's view to the meta data systems. > > *HasValue*: Provides the bridge between the metadata model and the world of > widgets. From the meta data system's point of view it has some way of > creating/linking with instances of HasValue, HasValue, > HasValue, etc.. > > From the widgets point of view, we have a whole bunch of text boxes, text > areas, date pickers, etc. on the page. > > Accordingly, HasValue should only ever be used for simple leaf types on leaf > widgets. > > *EventHandlers*: Provides a way for the meta data system controllers to add > callbacks to react to widget changes. > > > > > > > -Ray > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Ray Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We all seem to be talking about data binding and validation a lot, and > > some > > > of us are even implementing code about it. We on the GWT team hear the > > need > > > and feel it ourselves. > > > > We have some notions of how we'd like to tackle this in a way that blends > > > seamlessly with the rest of GWT, and are looking to start design and > > > implementation in earnest before the year is out. This makes it unlikely > > > that we'll accept core or incubator patches that implement such a system. > > > That said, we don't want to shoot down the excellent work that's being > > done! > > > If you have a system that's shaping up to meet your needs and that you > > want > > > to share with the GWT community, please do! Set up a Google Code > > project, > > > announce it here, embarrass us by shipping first and attracting a user > > > base. We'll probably steal from you shamelessly and ask for your help as > > our > > > own system takes shape. > > > I hope this doesn't ruffle any feathers, and that you'll understand why > > we > > > haven't been as responsive on some of these threads as we should have > > been. > > > Thanks, > > > rjrjr > > -- > "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand > binary, and those who don't" --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: GWT Issue 343 and the JSR-303 Draft (Implementing in GWT)
In the above Example the Parent field should also have an @Valid
annotation.
Also, instead of updating in the GWT issue 343 thread I'm updating
here:
http://code.google.com/p/gwt-validation/
It also has the Java5 release for download.
On Oct 8, 12:51 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes it is, consider:
>
> public class Parent {
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> private String parentString = null;
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> private Child child = null;
>
> /*
> GETTER AND SETTER METHODS GO HERE
> */
>
> }
>
> public class Child {
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> private String childString = null;
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> private Parent = null;
>
> /*
> GETTER AND SETTER METHODS GO HERE
> */
>
> }
>
> (Not that this example would require proper getter methods and some
> set values)
>
> In this case the @Valid annotation causes the validator to Validate
> the child class according to the rules of that child class. The
> @NotNull validation is performed first howerver /and/ it should be
> noted that the @Valid annotation will not be processed on null objects
> in any case. The validators also contain logic to prevent cyclic
> reprocessing, for example if you set the bidirectional Parent<->Child
> relationship as is possible in the example Parent /will not/ be
> processed twice and therefore neither will Child. The protection
> isn't perfect but it should be enough for the needs of most people.
>
> Let me know if you have any more questions.
>
> On Oct 8, 9:00 am, rb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is it possible to validate nested objects from a parent?
>
> > Thanks,
> > Rex
>
> > On Oct 6, 8:23 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Yea, easily. I didn't mean to make it Java6 specific.
>
> > > isEmpty() seems like a better metaphor, I'll take a loot at it right
> > > now.
>
> > > Thanks for pointing that out.
>
> > > On Oct 6, 9:13 am, rb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Could this be changed to support Java 5?
>
> > > > The String.isEmpty() and the AbstractValidator.unrollConstraintSet
> > > > have Java 6 specific stuff.
>
> > > > A lot more people will be able to use this if you take out the Java 6
> > > > stuff.
>
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Rex
>
> > > > On Oct 2, 1:22 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Another release has been made
> > > > > @http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343
>
> > > > > Please review and send me your comments. I'd like to target this for
> > > > > the GWT Incubator so I can get some more eyes on and stuff.
>
> > > > > My CLA has been electronically submitted and I'm ready to go.
>
> > > > > Chris Ruffalo
>
> > > > > On Sep 12, 3:09 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I've been looking at
> > > > > > :http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343
>
> > > > > > And I've hit a few snags:
>
> > > > > > Namely:
> > > > > > Hosted mode works fine but compiling tries to rebind twice (even
> > > > > > though I only have
> > > > > > one GWT.create()) and it can't create the printwriter because the
> > > > > > class it is trying to write
> > > > > > already exists. I guess I need a smarter generator. (?)
>
> > > > > > How the heck can I reconcile the functionality of java regex and
> > > > > > compiled regex? I
> > > > > > guess I could have a javascriptPattern and javaPattern property on
> > > > > > each validator... but that
> > > > > > sounds like a lot of work for the user. That is unless I've missed
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > new development along the
> > > > > > lines of making that easier for developers.
>
> > > > > > Anyway, any input would be appreciated and I think if I can figure
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > these snags and get my
> > > > > > CLA finished (I applied online last night) then I could post the
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > and people could start
> > > > > > poking at it a little bit because basic field/method level
> > > > > > validation
> > > > > > is working.
>
> > > > > > Chris Ruffalo- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: GWT Issue 343 and the JSR-303 Draft (Implementing in GWT)
Yes it is, consider:
public class Parent {
@NotNull
private String parentString = null;
@NotNull
@Valid
private Child child = null;
/*
GETTER AND SETTER METHODS GO HERE
*/
}
public class Child {
@NotEmpty
@NotNull
private String childString = null;
@NotNull
private Parent = null;
/*
GETTER AND SETTER METHODS GO HERE
*/
}
(Not that this example would require proper getter methods and some
set values)
In this case the @Valid annotation causes the validator to Validate
the child class according to the rules of that child class. The
@NotNull validation is performed first howerver /and/ it should be
noted that the @Valid annotation will not be processed on null objects
in any case. The validators also contain logic to prevent cyclic
reprocessing, for example if you set the bidirectional Parent<->Child
relationship as is possible in the example Parent /will not/ be
processed twice and therefore neither will Child. The protection
isn't perfect but it should be enough for the needs of most people.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
On Oct 8, 9:00 am, rb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to validate nested objects from a parent?
>
> Thanks,
> Rex
>
> On Oct 6, 8:23 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yea, easily. I didn't mean to make it Java6 specific.
>
> > isEmpty() seems like a better metaphor, I'll take a loot at it right
> > now.
>
> > Thanks for pointing that out.
>
> > On Oct 6, 9:13 am, rb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Could this be changed to support Java 5?
>
> > > The String.isEmpty() and the AbstractValidator.unrollConstraintSet
> > > have Java 6 specific stuff.
>
> > > A lot more people will be able to use this if you take out the Java 6
> > > stuff.
>
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rex
>
> > > On Oct 2, 1:22 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Another release has been made
> > > > @http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343
>
> > > > Please review and send me your comments. I'd like to target this for
> > > > the GWT Incubator so I can get some more eyes on and stuff.
>
> > > > My CLA has been electronically submitted and I'm ready to go.
>
> > > > Chris Ruffalo
>
> > > > On Sep 12, 3:09 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I've been looking at
> > > > > :http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343
>
> > > > > And I've hit a few snags:
>
> > > > > Namely:
> > > > > Hosted mode works fine but compiling tries to rebind twice (even
> > > > > though I only have
> > > > > one GWT.create()) and it can't create the printwriter because the
> > > > > class it is trying to write
> > > > > already exists. I guess I need a smarter generator. (?)
>
> > > > > How the heck can I reconcile the functionality of java regex and
> > > > > compiled regex? I
> > > > > guess I could have a javascriptPattern and javaPattern property on
> > > > > each validator... but that
> > > > > sounds like a lot of work for the user. That is unless I've missed a
> > > > > new development along the
> > > > > lines of making that easier for developers.
>
> > > > > Anyway, any input would be appreciated and I think if I can figure out
> > > > > these snags and get my
> > > > > CLA finished (I applied online last night) then I could post the code
> > > > > and people could start
> > > > > poking at it a little bit because basic field/method level validation
> > > > > is working.
>
> > > > > Chris Ruffalo- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: GWT Issue 343 and the JSR-303 Draft (Implementing in GWT)
Yea, easily. I didn't mean to make it Java6 specific. isEmpty() seems like a better metaphor, I'll take a loot at it right now. Thanks for pointing that out. On Oct 6, 9:13 am, rb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could this be changed to support Java 5? > > The String.isEmpty() and the AbstractValidator.unrollConstraintSet > have Java 6 specific stuff. > > A lot more people will be able to use this if you take out the Java 6 > stuff. > > Thanks, > Rex > > On Oct 2, 1:22 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Another release has been made > > @http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343 > > > Please review and send me your comments. I'd like to target this for > > the GWT Incubator so I can get some more eyes on and stuff. > > > My CLA has been electronically submitted and I'm ready to go. > > > Chris Ruffalo > > > On Sep 12, 3:09 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've been looking at > > > :http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343 > > > > And I've hit a few snags: > > > > Namely: > > > Hosted mode works fine but compiling tries to rebind twice (even > > > though I only have > > > one GWT.create()) and it can't create the printwriter because the > > > class it is trying to write > > > already exists. I guess I need a smarter generator. (?) > > > > How the heck can I reconcile the functionality of java regex and > > > compiled regex? I > > > guess I could have a javascriptPattern and javaPattern property on > > > each validator... but that > > > sounds like a lot of work for the user. That is unless I've missed a > > > new development along the > > > lines of making that easier for developers. > > > > Anyway, any input would be appreciated and I think if I can figure out > > > these snags and get my > > > CLA finished (I applied online last night) then I could post the code > > > and people could start > > > poking at it a little bit because basic field/method level validation > > > is working. > > > > Chris Ruffalo- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: GWT Issue 343 and the JSR-303 Draft (Implementing in GWT)
Another release has been made @ http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343 Please review and send me your comments. I'd like to target this for the GWT Incubator so I can get some more eyes on and stuff. My CLA has been electronically submitted and I'm ready to go. Chris Ruffalo On Sep 12, 3:09 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been looking at > :http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343 > > And I've hit a few snags: > > Namely: > Hosted mode works fine but compiling tries to rebind twice (even > though I only have > one GWT.create()) and it can't create the printwriter because the > class it is trying to write > already exists. I guess I need a smarter generator. (?) > > How the heck can I reconcile the functionality of java regex and > compiled regex? I > guess I could have a javascriptPattern and javaPattern property on > each validator... but that > sounds like a lot of work for the user. That is unless I've missed a > new development along the > lines of making that easier for developers. > > Anyway, any input would be appreciated and I think if I can figure out > these snags and get my > CLA finished (I applied online last night) then I could post the code > and people could start > poking at it a little bit because basic field/method level validation > is working. > > Chris Ruffalo --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: GWT Issue 343 and the JSR-303 Draft (Implementing in GWT)
Newer release :
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343#c28
On Sep 17, 9:07 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Released here
> :http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> On Sep 17, 6:42 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I wasn't including the source files. Disregard. Release should be
> > soon.
>
> > On Sep 17, 3:38 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > One final bit of help.
>
> > > I'm having problems building a jar that will work with the modules to
> > > compile under a normal project. If I export the jar with Eclipse
> > > everything works fine ("add directory entries" and all that) and the
> > > compile and shell modes work.
>
> > > If I use an ant task to build the jar then it will not work with the
> > > compiled mode or the shell mode.
>
> > > I've never been able to have ant (1.7.1) do this in the past either,
> > > on other projects.
>
> > > Any help would be appreciated.
>
> > > On Sep 12, 11:08 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > I see. That worked, I guess I was expecting something bad to happen
> > > > if I didn't write new source. In retrospect why would that happen?
>
> > > > Fortunately I don't have to do anything different (per user agent)
> > > > yet.
>
> > > > On Sep 12, 3:39 pm, BobV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Namely:
> > > > > > Hosted mode works fine but compiling tries to rebind twice (even
> > > > > > though I only have
> > > > > > one GWT.create()) and it can't create the printwriter because the
> > > > > > class it is trying to write
> > > > > > already exists. I guess I need a smarter generator. (?)
>
> > > > > This is expected behavior. The generator gets called once per
> > > > > permutation. If the PrintWriter is null, just return the name of the
> > > > > implementation class that you were tryping to create. It works this
> > > > > way because you may want to generate different code for different
> > > > > user.agent values or along some other deferred-binding axis. In this
> > > > > case, you would name the implementation classes differently.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Bob Vawter
> > > > > Google Web Toolkit Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: GWT Issue 343 and the JSR-303 Draft (Implementing in GWT)
Released here : http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343
Let me know what you think.
On Sep 17, 6:42 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wasn't including the source files. Disregard. Release should be
> soon.
>
> On Sep 17, 3:38 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One final bit of help.
>
> > I'm having problems building a jar that will work with the modules to
> > compile under a normal project. If I export the jar with Eclipse
> > everything works fine ("add directory entries" and all that) and the
> > compile and shell modes work.
>
> > If I use an ant task to build the jar then it will not work with the
> > compiled mode or the shell mode.
>
> > I've never been able to have ant (1.7.1) do this in the past either,
> > on other projects.
>
> > Any help would be appreciated.
>
> > On Sep 12, 11:08 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I see. That worked, I guess I was expecting something bad to happen
> > > if I didn't write new source. In retrospect why would that happen?
>
> > > Fortunately I don't have to do anything different (per user agent)
> > > yet.
>
> > > On Sep 12, 3:39 pm, BobV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Namely:
> > > > > Hosted mode works fine but compiling tries to rebind twice (even
> > > > > though I only have
> > > > > one GWT.create()) and it can't create the printwriter because the
> > > > > class it is trying to write
> > > > > already exists. I guess I need a smarter generator. (?)
>
> > > > This is expected behavior. The generator gets called once per
> > > > permutation. If the PrintWriter is null, just return the name of the
> > > > implementation class that you were tryping to create. It works this
> > > > way because you may want to generate different code for different
> > > > user.agent values or along some other deferred-binding axis. In this
> > > > case, you would name the implementation classes differently.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Bob Vawter
> > > > Google Web Toolkit Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: GWT Issue 343 and the JSR-303 Draft (Implementing in GWT)
I wasn't including the source files. Disregard. Release should be
soon.
On Sep 17, 3:38 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One final bit of help.
>
> I'm having problems building a jar that will work with the modules to
> compile under a normal project. If I export the jar with Eclipse
> everything works fine ("add directory entries" and all that) and the
> compile and shell modes work.
>
> If I use an ant task to build the jar then it will not work with the
> compiled mode or the shell mode.
>
> I've never been able to have ant (1.7.1) do this in the past either,
> on other projects.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> On Sep 12, 11:08 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I see. That worked, I guess I was expecting something bad to happen
> > if I didn't write new source. In retrospect why would that happen?
>
> > Fortunately I don't have to do anything different (per user agent)
> > yet.
>
> > On Sep 12, 3:39 pm, BobV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Namely:
> > > > Hosted mode works fine but compiling tries to rebind twice (even
> > > > though I only have
> > > > one GWT.create()) and it can't create the printwriter because the
> > > > class it is trying to write
> > > > already exists. I guess I need a smarter generator. (?)
>
> > > This is expected behavior. The generator gets called once per
> > > permutation. If the PrintWriter is null, just return the name of the
> > > implementation class that you were tryping to create. It works this
> > > way because you may want to generate different code for different
> > > user.agent values or along some other deferred-binding axis. In this
> > > case, you would name the implementation classes differently.
>
> > > --
> > > Bob Vawter
> > > Google Web Toolkit Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: GWT Issue 343 and the JSR-303 Draft (Implementing in GWT)
One final bit of help.
I'm having problems building a jar that will work with the modules to
compile under a normal project. If I export the jar with Eclipse
everything works fine ("add directory entries" and all that) and the
compile and shell modes work.
If I use an ant task to build the jar then it will not work with the
compiled mode or the shell mode.
I've never been able to have ant (1.7.1) do this in the past either,
on other projects.
Any help would be appreciated.
On Sep 12, 11:08 pm, "chris.ruffalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see. That worked, I guess I was expecting something bad to happen
> if I didn't write new source. In retrospect why would that happen?
>
> Fortunately I don't have to do anything different (per user agent)
> yet.
>
> On Sep 12, 3:39 pm, BobV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Namely:
> > > Hosted mode works fine but compiling tries to rebind twice (even
> > > though I only have
> > > one GWT.create()) and it can't create the printwriter because the
> > > class it is trying to write
> > > already exists. I guess I need a smarter generator. (?)
>
> > This is expected behavior. The generator gets called once per
> > permutation. If the PrintWriter is null, just return the name of the
> > implementation class that you were tryping to create. It works this
> > way because you may want to generate different code for different
> > user.agent values or along some other deferred-binding axis. In this
> > case, you would name the implementation classes differently.
>
> > --
> > Bob Vawter
> > Google Web Toolkit Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: GWT Issue 343 and the JSR-303 Draft (Implementing in GWT)
I see. That worked, I guess I was expecting something bad to happen if I didn't write new source. In retrospect why would that happen? Fortunately I don't have to do anything different (per user agent) yet. On Sep 12, 3:39 pm, BobV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Namely: > > Hosted mode works fine but compiling tries to rebind twice (even > > though I only have > > one GWT.create()) and it can't create the printwriter because the > > class it is trying to write > > already exists. I guess I need a smarter generator. (?) > > This is expected behavior. The generator gets called once per > permutation. If the PrintWriter is null, just return the name of the > implementation class that you were tryping to create. It works this > way because you may want to generate different code for different > user.agent values or along some other deferred-binding axis. In this > case, you would name the implementation classes differently. > > -- > Bob Vawter > Google Web Toolkit Team --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] GWT Issue 343 and the JSR-303 Draft (Implementing in GWT)
I've been looking at : http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343 And I've hit a few snags: Namely: Hosted mode works fine but compiling tries to rebind twice (even though I only have one GWT.create()) and it can't create the printwriter because the class it is trying to write already exists. I guess I need a smarter generator. (?) How the heck can I reconcile the functionality of java regex and compiled regex? I guess I could have a javascriptPattern and javaPattern property on each validator... but that sounds like a lot of work for the user. That is unless I've missed a new development along the lines of making that easier for developers. Anyway, any input would be appreciated and I think if I can figure out these snags and get my CLA finished (I applied online last night) then I could post the code and people could start poking at it a little bit because basic field/method level validation is working. Chris Ruffalo --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
