Re: Scheduling tasks
any oracle developer or dba could tell you: alter system kill session 'sid,serial'; Kills any session. In Oracle you can allways kill session that have gone astray. And even if it doesn't work from sql+, you can always look op the OS-pid (in v$session) and kill the process on the os level. (Be sure that you set job_queue_processes to 0, because if you don't Oracle sometimes restarts the job). Martijn Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: users@tapestry.apache.org Subject: Re: Scheduling tasks Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:28:42 -0500 >I can't comment on Quartz but I did use the Oracle scheduler until >someone scheduled a query that ran for hours and made the database >useless. It was difficult to recover from because you could not login >to stop the task. > >If you schedule > >* * * * * wget http://localhost/cronjob > >then you don't have any machine dependencies although I generally >schedule a shell script because I want an email if it fails which >leads to Quartz only works when the JVM is running. I've seen enough >JVM crashes to have a cronjob that restarts Tomcat. I don't recall >cron ever crashing. > >- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: regular expression in pattern
Hi Carl,
I'm afraid the code that actually /calls/ the validator, is stripping
the square brackets, so you can't pass in the regexp you mentioned
below. I haven't looked up the code that calls a validator, but I
assume it has to do with the syntax of the ognl-_expression_-parsing. The
parser is using square brackets to set the boundaries of the total
_expression_, so you can't pass those in.
On another thread, I more or less asked the same question, but did not
get a reply. This caused me to write my own validator, that /does/
accept square brackets. Well, sort of. It replaces all accolades ( "{"
and "}" ) by square brackets. This allows me to use, for example:
or, including a custom error message:
The code for the validator I wrote is fairly straightforward:
public class PatternValidator extends BaseValidator {
private static final Log log =
LogFactory.getLog(PatternValidator.class);
private String pattern;
public void setMzzPattern(String pattern) {
this.pattern = pattern.replace('{','[').replace('}',']');
}
public void validate(IFormComponent field, ValidationMessages
messages, Object object) throws ValidatorException {
if( log.isDebugEnabled() ) {
log.debug("Validating input: "+object+" pattern:"+pattern);
}
if( object==null ) {
return;
}
if( !Pattern.matches(pattern,object.toString())) {
if( messageKey==null ) {
setMessageKey("{0} dos not comply to regExp: "+pattern);
}
throw new ValidatorException(buildMessage(messages, field),
ValidationConstraint.PATTERN_MISMATCH);
}
}
}
Hope this helps. Anybody with a better way? Would love to see that too.
Martijn
BTW: you can find the code of Tapestry's pattern validator at:
tapestry-4.0.1\framework\src\java\org\apache\tapestry\form\validator\Pattern.java
Carl Pelletier wrote:
Hi everyone, I'm trying to validate a Canadian Postal code in a text field. Can somebody point me to the doc where I can find all the type of pattern supported by pattern= in the validator ?
I search on the forum and get a look at the online doc, but can't find explication on this.
For now, I'm trying to do something like:
Thanks for any help ! sorry for the bad english...
P.S. I'm thinking of starting a french version of this forum. Please email me if your think it's a good idea.
Carl Pelletier
--
Cumquat Information
Technology
De Dreef 19
3706 BR Zeist
T +31 (0)30 - 6940490
F +31 (0)10 - 6940499
http://www.cumquat.nl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
M +31 6 22 384 318
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How to use my own ValidationStrings.properties?
Er... This list still for tech geeks, or graphical artists?
Hold your horses, just joking. ;-)
But I do have a question: What is the preferred way of overriding Tap's
ValidationStrings.properties? I could not find any configuration
setting, so I sort of have overriden Howards 'getPattern() method in
BaseValidator, like the code below. I call my
getMessageFromValidationStrings from within my validator's
buildMessages() method. Is that a good way to use my own ValidationStrings?
Thanks for any reply,
Martijn
/** Copied from HLS's getPattern
*
* TODO document me more
*
* @param override
* @param key
* @param locale
* @return
*/
protected String getMessageFromValidationStrings(String key, Locale
locale) {
try {
ResourceBundle strings =
ResourceBundle.getBundle("my.package.ValidationStrings", locale);
return strings.getString(key);
} catch ( java.util.MissingResourceException e ) {
return ("["+key+"]").toUpperCase();
}
}
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Page files or annotations? [was: Validation]
That's exactly my problem. I use a container that is not Java 1.5 certified, so I cannot use annotations. However I am in favor of keeping my .page files as short as possible. They only contain things like page injections, service object injections and such, but almost no components. All components are fulle embedded in my html files, which I find easier to read and maintain. Even with some smart macro's. However I would very much like to get rid of my .page files, *or* find a way to sort of 'subclass' .page files. The master .page class would then have all general injections in it so that I do not have to repeate the injection of for example a "UserInfoService" in all of my .page files. This has been discussed a few times on this list allready, but I have not yet seen any good solution that does not use annotations. I am very interested in the autowiring James writes about. Martijn James Carman wrote: Well, without autowiring (it'll be in there soon), you have to use .page files to inject service objects into your pages if you're not willing to use annotations. With autowiring, though, all you'll have to do is create a "getter" for a property of the same type as one of the HiveMind services and it'll be auto-wired for you. -Original Message- From: Paul Cantrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:48 AM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: Page files or annotations? [was: Validation] I think Sam has it right: it depends. In my development, I never write page files -- but we don't have any separate person devoted to the page design. That seems like the only compelling case left for the page files, but it is somewhat compelling: it keeps as much as possible out of the page file, so the designed can focus on the HTML and not have to tiptoe over so much extra baggage. (One can of course use annotations to achieve that, too, but it requires declaring tons of getXyzComponent() methods that clutter up classes.) However, without the separate designed role, I find the annotations approach keeps things much cleaner. Unless you're keen on keeping the templates as pared-down as possible, then, I'd recommend that. In Tap 5, it sounds like things are moving towards annotations only. Hopefully 5 will reduce the verbosity of some of the common cases. Cheers, Paul On May 10, 2006, at 7:49 AM, Sam Gendler wrote: On 5/10/06, Martijn Hinten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have been wondering this for some time now: Is it the general consensus to get rid of .page files and do all binding in the html (and injection via annotations in the java classes)? I think it depends on the size of your team and complexity of your app. With a fairly large team, including one person devoted to layout, I prefer to keep all component declarations in .page files, so that the layout templates are as clean as possible and least likely to get screwed up by someone making edits without a clue about how tapestry works. I've generally got nothing but jwcid attributes in my templates. A simple macro in just about any editor will make it easy to switch between .page and .html files in a single keystroke or mouse click, so the complaint about having to switch files really isn't valid, to my mind. We also attempt to keep components in the same order in the .page file as they are used in the .html template. It is a couple of minutes of developer time per page at the end of any release cycle on any pages that have gotten out of whack and it keeps things easy to find. In fact, I have a macro in vim which will switch to a .page file and go to the same location as I am currently at, as a percentage of the file length, with two keystrokes. Odds are usually good that I can see the component that I am looking for as soon as the other file is visible, and both files are so much more readable as a result. The only thing I hate is when informal parameters are important to the function of the component, since, as far as I know, they must appear in the html file. I really wish there were a way to bind informal parameters to a component from within a .page file, overriding any informal parameters of the same name that are in the .html template which may be necessary for layout in the unrendered page. That way, I could put ALL of my parameter bindings in the .page file. --sam - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [E
Re: Validation
I have been wondering this for some time now: Is it the general consensus to get rid of .page files and do all binding in the html (and injection via annotations in the java classes)? Rui Pacheco wrote: I was just wondering if I was going to have to write .page files for every .html page that required validation. Now that my blindness has been healed, I am happily adding validators="" to all tags on all my .html pages :D On 5/10/06, Pedro Viegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you do all the binding in the .html template, and the class to page binding in the .application you don't need the .page in Tap4. Be more specific if this was not the answer you were looking for. Regards, On 5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all > > In Tapestry 4 when doing validation, must I always place the binding tag > on > the page specification or can I do it on the .application file? > > I am asking because my application uses a fair amount of classes and I am > simply maping pages to classes through the .application file and I am > wondering if I'll have to create all the .page files now. > > -- > Cumprimentos, > Rui Pacheco > > -- Pedro Viegas -- Cumprimentos, Rui Pacheco -- Cumquat Information Technology De Dreef 19 3706 BR Zeist T +31 (0)30 - 6940490 F +31 (0)10 - 6940499 http://www.cumquat.nl [EMAIL PROTECTED] M +31 6 22 384 318 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SOLVED] How to pass in a message key *and* parameters into a ValidationDelegate
Just for the record: I solved it. It appears that the ValidationDelegate
is *not* looking up messages in the resource bundle, but that my own
code did just that, a bit further down the line. So my own code tried to
look up a message that was allready the result of a resource bundle
lookup, and hence did not find it. Fixed my own code and now all works fine.
Ciao,
Martijn
Martijn Hinten wrote:
Hi,
The method
record(String message, ValidationConstraint constraint)
of
org.apache.tapestry.valid.ValidationDelegate
will lookup any message automatically in the message property file.
However there does not seem to be a record-method that allows me to
pass in both the message-key and any substitution parameters, for example
// DOES NOT EXIST:
record(String message, String[] parameters, ValidationConstraint
constraint)
When I try to trick Tapestry, by formatting the message myself, before
passing it in, like this:
record(getMessages().formatMessage("my-key",new String{"My-param"}, null)
..it will still try to lookup the complete formatted message in the
property file, and - obviously - won't find it and I end up with the
complete message text capitalized, between brackets ( like this:
"[HELLO THIS IS MY MESSAGE WITH MY PARAM: FOO]").
Does anybody out there know of any way to either:
- pass in message-substitution-paramaters into ValidationDelegate's
record() method
- disable ValidationDelegate's record() method from looking up
messages in the property file, so that I can pass in a pre-formatted
message
Thanks for any input. I did look into the archives and didn't find an
answer yet. If I overlooked it, my humble apologies.
Thanks,
Martijn
--
*Cumquat Information Technology*
De Dreef 19
3706 BR Zeist
T +31 (0)30 - 6940490
F +31 (0)10 - 6940499
http://www.cumquat.nl <http://www.cumquat.nl/>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
M +31 6 22 384 318
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How to pass in a message key *and* parameters into a ValidationDelegate
Hi,
The method
record(String message, ValidationConstraint constraint)
of
org.apache.tapestry.valid.ValidationDelegate
will lookup any message automatically in the message property file.
However there does not seem to be a record-method that allows me to pass
in both the message-key and any substitution parameters, for example
// DOES NOT EXIST:
record(String message, String[] parameters, ValidationConstraint constraint)
When I try to trick Tapestry, by formatting the message myself, before
passing it in, like this:
record(getMessages().formatMessage("my-key",new String{"My-param"}, null)
..it will still try to lookup the complete formatted message in the
property file, and - obviously - won't find it and I end up with the
complete message text capitalized, between brackets ( like this: "[HELLO
THIS IS MY MESSAGE WITH MY PARAM: FOO]").
Does anybody out there know of any way to either:
- pass in message-substitution-paramaters into ValidationDelegate's
record() method
- disable ValidationDelegate's record() method from looking up messages
in the property file, so that I can pass in a pre-formatted message
Thanks for any input. I did look into the archives and didn't find an
answer yet. If I overlooked it, my humble apologies.
Thanks,
Martijn
--
*Cumquat Information Technology*
De Dreef 19
3706 BR Zeist
T +31 (0)30 - 6940490
F +31 (0)10 - 6940499
http://www.cumquat.nl
M +31 6 22 384 318
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
