Re: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go?
ouch, I cried for 10 minutes! ha! Its all good. Tim's suggestion about .errorString agrees with me.DKOn 9/9/06, bjorn.schultheiss < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Sorry, bad morning.I do have manners, i just didn't show them very well then. Regards,Bjorn Schultheiss--Flexcoders Mailing ListFAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/<*> Your email settings:Individual Email | Traditional<*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/join(Yahoo! ID required)<*> To change settings via email:mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -- Douglas Knudsenhttp://www.cubicleman.comthis is my signature, like it? __._,_.___ -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com SPONSORED LINKS Software development tool Software development Software development services Home design software Software development company Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___
Re: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go?
I'd create a model for my input component, which also contains the
errorstring and bind the ui component to it.
Cheers,
Ralf.
On 9/9/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really so stupid. The default way would be to set the
> errorString of the control:
>
> myTextInput.errorString = "Enter something here dummy!";
>
> This will automatically add the red border and display the red error
> message when the cursor is over the control. To remove the border
> and the message, simply clear the errorString.
>
> myTextInput.errorString = "";
>
> Bjorn, why so harsh? We all have to start somewhere.
>
> -TH
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "bjorn.schultheiss"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > You are correct,
> >
> > It is a bit of a stupid question.
> >
> > TextField.setStyle('borderColor', 0xFF);
> >
> > TextField.setStyle('borderThickness', 2);
> >
> > Alert.show('FIX THIS FORM');
> >
> > TextField.toolTip
> >
> > There are a heap of different ways
> >
> > Personal Implementation
> >
> > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Knudsen"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > ok, stupid question, this is a great example, but how do you get
> this to
> > > utilise all those fancy vaildation messages in the Flex SDK. I'm
> > talking
> > > about the ones that change the control to red borders and the
> > fly-out error
> > > message.
> > >
> > > DK
> > >
> > > On 9/8/06, grahampengelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Bjorn
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for taking the time to throw some code into the
> discussion. The
> > > > solution I ended up implementing was similar to the one you
> > suggest. In my
> > > > case the validation was simple, the user either supplies a
> number
> > of answers
> > > > to a question that is between the minimum and maximum allowed
> or
> > they don't.
> > > > My point here is that the validation message to the user is
> more
> > or less
> > > > predefined.
> > > >
> > > > In a more complicated scenario, say a name and address form,
> it would
> > > > appear the model would get messy. Just the name field might
> have
> > required,
> > > > min max length and [a-z][A-Z] validation rules. Which of these
> > rules is
> > > > broken and on what field would need to be passed back to the
> view
> > if you
> > > > say, wanted to display an instruction to the user or color the
> > appropriate
> > > > textfield. Having engaged in this discussion I think I have now
> > come to a
> > > > solution for scenarios like this that would maintain the
> intent of
> > the MVC
> > > > pattern.
> > > >
> > > > On the model you would maintain a collection of objects such
> as this:
> > > >
> > > > public class ValidationFailedInfo
> > > > {
> > > > private var _propertyName:String;
> > > > private var _message:String;
> > > >
> > > > public function get propertyName():String
> > > > {
> > > > return _propertyName;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > public function get message():String
> > > > {
> > > > return _message;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > public function ValidationFailedInfo(message:String,
> > > > propertyName:String)
> > > > {
> > > > _message = message;
> > > > _propertyName = propertyName;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > That would be populated/cleared by a validate() function (not
> > shown but it
> > > > just applies your rules to the properties of the model). You
> would
> > also have
> > > > a method such as:
> > > >
> > > > public function
> > GetValidationMessages(propertyName:String):Array
> > > > {
> > > > validate();
> > > > var messageArr:Array = new Array();
> > > > var currValInfo:ValidationFailedInfo = null;
> > > > for(var x:int = 0; x<_validationInfoList.length;
> x++)
> > > > {
> > > > curValInfo =
> > ValidationFailedInfo(_validationInfoList[x]);
> > > > if(currValInfo.propertyName == propertyName)
> > > > {
> > > > messageArr.push(currValInfo.message);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > return messageArr;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > You could use this to determine whether each field is valid
> and if
> > not why
> > > > not. All of the validation rules would remain in the model as
> > would the
> > > > message strings that you return. If for example your
> application
> > supports 10
> > > > languages, storing all of the language logic in the view would
> be a
> > > > maintenance nightmare wheras this would allow all of that to
> stay
> > in the
> > > > model.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for all of your contributions. Can I also take the
> > opportunity to
> > > > say that this is the most welcoming and active group that I
> have
> > > > participated in... Keep it up [image: :D]
> > > >
> > > > Graham
> > > >
> > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Bjorn Schulthe
Re: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go?
ok, stupid question, this is a great example, but how do you get this to utilise all those fancy vaildation messages in the Flex SDK. I'm talking about the ones that change the control to red borders and the fly-out error message.
DKOn 9/8/06, grahampengelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi BjornThanks for taking the time to throw some code into the discussion. The solution I ended up implementing was similar to the one you suggest. In my case the validation was simple, the user either supplies a number of answers to a question that is between the minimum and maximum allowed or they don't. My point here is that the validation message to the user is more or less predefined.
In a more complicated scenario, say a name and address form, it would appear the model would get messy. Just the name field might have required, min max length and [a-z][A-Z] validation rules. Which of these rules is broken and on what field would need to be passed back to the view if you say, wanted to display an instruction to the user or color the appropriate textfield. Having engaged in this discussion I think I have now come to a solution for scenarios like this that would maintain the intent of the MVC pattern.
On the model you would maintain a collection of objects such as this: public class ValidationFailedInfo { private var _propertyName:String; private var _message:String;
public function get propertyName():String { return _propertyName; } public function get message():String { return _message;
} public function ValidationFailedInfo(message:String, propertyName:String) { _message = message; _propertyName = propertyName; } }
That would be populated/cleared by a validate() function (not shown but it just applies your rules to the properties of the model). You would also have a method such as: public function GetValidationMessages(propertyName:String):Array
{ validate(); var messageArr:Array = new Array(); var currValInfo:ValidationFailedInfo = null; for(var x:int = 0; x<_validationInfoList.length; x++)
{ curValInfo = ValidationFailedInfo(_validationInfoList[x]); if(currValInfo.propertyName == propertyName) { messageArr.push
(currValInfo.message); } } return messageArr; }You could use this to determine whether each field is valid and if not why not. All of the validation rules would remain in the model as would the message strings that you return. If for example your application supports 10 languages, storing all of the language logic in the view would be a maintenance nightmare wheras this would allow all of that to stay in the model.
Thanks for all of your contributions. Can I also take the opportunity to say that this is the most welcoming and active group that I have participated in... Keep it up
Graham--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Bjorn Schultheiss" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Gladly,> > simple example.> > // view> >
> // model data Object> public function set username(value:String):void> {> _username = value;> validateForm()> }> > private function validateForm():void
> {> if (_username != undefined)> formValidated = true;> }> > This is code i've just typed, but the principle remains the same.> Data drives the view via dataBinding. There are alternatives to the way you
> would structure your models and views but the principle remains the same.> > > Regards,> > Bjorn Schultheiss> Senior Flash Developer> QDC Technologies>
> > _ > > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On> Behalf Of grahampengelly> Sent: Friday, 8 September 2006 12:24 PM> To:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go?> > > > Thanks all for the discussion...> > So it seems the consensus is the validation, from a pattern purist point of
> view should sit in the model. Someone suggested a model.isDataValid> property... This gives us an indication but how should we be communicating> back to the view which data it is that is invalid and what is it that is
> invalid about it? Should the model dispatch a data invalid event that the> view acts upon or a checkValid function that returns the data required to> act?> > I know this is very much academic, particularly as since posting originally,
> I have implemented my validation that works perfectly well. I would be> interested to hear Bjorn how you get your validation information back out of> the model to display it in the view.>
> Cheers...> > Graham> Blog
> > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Bjorn Schultheiss"
> bjorn.schultheiss@ wrote:> >> > I'm going to fly kick this thread quickly.> > Validation relates to model, qu
RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go?
Gladly,
simple example.
// view
// model data Object
public function set
username(value:String):void
{
_username = value;
validateForm()
}
private function validateForm():void
{
if (_username !=
undefined)
formValidated = true;
}
This is code i've just typed, but the principle remains the
same.
Data drives the view via dataBinding. There are
alternatives to the way you would structure your models and views but the
principle remains the same.
Regards,
Bjorn
Schultheiss
Senior Flash
Developer
QDC
Technologies
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
grahampengellySent: Friday, 8 September 2006 12:24
PMTo: flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [flexcoders] Re:
Cairngorm... Where should this go?
Thanks all for the discussion...So it seems the consensus is the
validation, from a pattern purist point of view should sit in the model. Someone
suggested a model.isDataValid property... This gives us an indication but how
should we be communicating back to the view which data it is that is invalid and
what is it that is invalid about it? Should the model dispatch a data invalid
event that the view acts upon or a checkValid function that returns the data
required to act?I know this is very much academic, particularly as since
posting originally, I have implemented my validation that works perfectly well.
I would be interested to hear Bjorn how you get your validation information back
out of the model to display it in the view.Cheers...GrahamBlog --- In
[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com, "Bjorn Schultheiss"
...> wrote:>> I'm going to fly kick
this thread quickly.> Validation relates to model, quite simply.>
> > Regards,> > Bjorn Schultheiss> Senior
Flash Developer> QDC Technologies> > > _
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On> Behalf Of
lostinrecursion> Sent: Friday, 8 September 2006 6:28 AM> To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com> Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm...
Where should this go?> > > > Sorry but I have to
interject on this. Intsrestingly enough I asked a> similar question some
days ago and did not receive a response from a> design pettern
perspective, but from a "what works" perspective. I am> actually 85% of
the tim all about what works, so not there is anything> wrong with it.
But, I would like to hear some other rhoughts on it> since Validation is
integral to just about every RIA that accepts data> on the
planet.> > In MVC, the Validators seem to be more of a middle
ground issue. Since> the Model contains the business logic and is fed
data to process and> the controller merely acts as waystation back and
forth from view to> model, it would seem to me that there should almost
be another letter> in MVC since validation doesn't really fit
anywhere.> > However, it would seem to me that a Validation
function would be> placed in the model itself. Since the view should only
query the model> to get its current state and accept the user input, it
seems it should> not be in the View to promote modularity.
{myModel.dataIsValid == true}> > Because what if you wanted
to add another View to the application??> (As the OP mentioned)
Seems to me like it would be malformed in the View.> > H...
Perhaps MVCV - ;)>
__._,_.___
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com
SPONSORED LINKS
Software development tool
Software development
Software development services
Home design software
Software development company
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group
|
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
|
Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go?
I'm going to fly kick this thread
quickly.
Validation relates to model, quite
simply.
Regards,
Bjorn
Schultheiss
Senior Flash
Developer
QDC
Technologies
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
lostinrecursionSent: Friday, 8 September 2006 6:28
AMTo: flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [flexcoders] Re:
Cairngorm... Where should this go?
Sorry but I have to interject on this. Intsrestingly enough I asked
asimilar question some days ago and did not receive a response from
adesign pettern perspective, but from a "what works" perspective. I
amactually 85% of the tim all about what works, so not there is
anythingwrong with it. But, I would like to hear some other rhoughts on
itsince Validation is integral to just about every RIA that accepts
dataon the planet.In MVC, the Validators seem to be more of a middle
ground issue. Sincethe Model contains the business logic and is fed data to
process andthe controller merely acts as waystation back and forth from view
tomodel, it would seem to me that there should almost be another
letterin MVC since validation doesn't really fit anywhere.However,
it would seem to me that a Validation function would beplaced in the model
itself. Since the view should only query the modelto get its current state
and accept the user input, it seems it shouldnot be in the View to promote
modularity. {myModel.dataIsValid == true}Because what if you wanted
to add another View to the application??(As the OP mentioned) Seems to
me like it would be malformed in the View.H... Perhaps MVCV -
;)
__._,_.___
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com
SPONSORED LINKS
Software development tool
Software development
Software development services
Home design software
Software development company
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
__,_._,___
RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go?
It's quite simple. Validation is half of what business rules are. Validating
that information is of a necessary format. The data
format (and thus, it's validation rules) are technology and presentation
agnostic. The model should have the final say on whether
it's contents are currently valid or not.
Ruby on Rails has validation in the model, and the view has helper
functionality which makes presenting validation errors easily...
But the actual validation itself happens on the model.
In Flex, the reason validators are in the views is because that's where we can
-do- something about invalid data easily, ie
highlight a field, point a help bubble at it, stop the form from submitting etc.
I guess because Flex is a presentation framework, the emphasis is on the
display of/interaction with data. The V is the primary
aspect. With Rails, since it's a full web stack, the validation sits where it
logically should; in the model.
As to what to actually do with this information; go with the convention: stick
it in the view. That's the way the framework has been
designed, and everything should fall into place with it.
-Original Message-
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
lostinrecursion
Sent: 07 September 2006 10:28 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go?
Sorry but I have to interject on this. Intsrestingly enough I asked a similar
question some days ago and did not receive a response
from a design pettern perspective, but from a "what works" perspective. I am
actually 85% of the tim all about what works, so not
there is anything wrong with it. But, I would like to hear some other rhoughts
on it since Validation is integral to just about
every RIA that accepts data on the planet.
In MVC, the Validators seem to be more of a middle ground issue. Since the
Model contains the business logic and is fed data to
process and the controller merely acts as waystation back and forth from view
to model, it would seem to me that there should almost
be another letter in MVC since validation doesn't really fit anywhere.
However, it would seem to me that a Validation function would be placed in the
model itself. Since the view should only query the
model to get its current state and accept the user input, it seems it should
not be in the View to promote modularity.
{myModel.dataIsValid == true}
Because what if you wanted to add another View to the application??
(As the OP mentioned) Seems to me like it would be malformed in the View.
H... Perhaps MVCV - ;)
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.1/440 - Release Date: 2006/09/06
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.1/440 - Release Date: 2006/09/06
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go?
Yes, I’m with you on the ‘what simply works’ attitude. I just thought that maybe the MVC pattern had some direction on this kind of scenario. I have implemented your earlier suggestion and it is working fine… Thanks for your help. Graham Blog From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dimitrios Gianninas Sent: 07 September 2006 15:29 To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go? I always do "what simply works". Sometimes I do something, and days/weeks/months review it and see that it could be better/or is causing a problem, so I refactor. I dont think there is one perfect way, it also depends on the project as well sometimes. Dimitrios Gianninas RIA Developer Optimal Payments Inc. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of grahampengelly Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go? Thanks for your suggestion Dimitrios... I had thought of that too but in the MVC architecture, doesn't that put logic into the view? My impression of the architecture is that you should be able to create a different view over the same model without duplicating code. I mean, I don't want to have another view and am more or less positive I never will but looking at it from a purist's point of view is this the 'correct' way to do it? I suppose if the rules that you validate against are kept within the model ie. min and max allowable responses for the current question in my case then your suggestion would be the 'correct' way of doing it. I think I will go with your suggestion but I would be interested to hear if you, or anyone else had any further opinions... Thanks again... Graham --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com, "Dimitrios Gianninas" [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Put a method to handle the validation of the form or forms in the view. Then when the user presses the button, validate the form(s) and if all is ok then fire the event that calls your command to do whatever you want. > > Dimitrios Gianninas > RIA Developer > Optimal Payments Inc. > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com] On Behalf Of grahampengelly > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 8:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com > Subject: [flexcoders] Cairngorm... Where should this go? > > > > Hi > > I am building an assessment application with Cairngorm. All is going > swimmingly but I am wondering where I should put the following. > > The view collects the respondents answers and fires off an event, > containing them. The Controller picks this up and updates the Model... > Pretty standard stuff. > > My problem is that I need to validate the number of answers given. I'm > new to the MVC pattern so I am not sure where this should go on. I > want to give an alert or something like that to the user if the > answers aren't valid. Should I just create the alert in the command > that lives in the controller? This doesn't really seem right. Should I > raise an event from the model and subscribe to this in the view. This > seems more in keeping with what I perceive the roles of each aspect of > the architecture to be but seems a bit convoluted. > > At the end of the day I can get it to work in either of these and > probably a few other ways but as I have embarked on this architecture > I would like to make sure that I am doing it 'properly'... > > Thanks in advance... > > Graham > > > > > > -- > WARNING > --- > This electronic message and its attachments may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information, which is solely for the use of the intended recipient. No privilege or other rights are waived by any unintended transmission or unauthorized retransmission of this message. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if you have received it in error, you should immediately stop reading this message and delete it and all attachments from your system. The reading, distribution, copying or other use of this message or its attachments by unintended recipients is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender. > > AVIS IMPORTANT > -- > Ce message électronique et ses pièces jointes peuvent contenir des renseignements confidentiels, exclusifs ou légalement privilégiés destinés au seul usage du destinataire visé. L'expéditeur original ne renonce à aucun privilège ou à aucun autre droit si le présent message a été transmis involontairement ou s'il est retransmis
RE: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go?
I always do "what simply works". Sometimes I do something, and days/weeks/months review it and see that it could be better/or is causing a problem, so I refactor. I dont think there is one perfect way, it also depends on the project as well sometimes. Dimitrios Gianninas RIA Developer Optimal Payments Inc. From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of grahampengellySent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:39 AMTo: flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [flexcoders] Re: Cairngorm... Where should this go? Thanks for your suggestion Dimitrios...I had thought of that too but in the MVC architecture, doesn't thatput logic into the view? My impression of the architecture is that youshould be able to create a different view over the same model withoutduplicating code. I mean, I don't want to have another view and ammore or less positive I never will but looking at it from a purist'spoint of view is this the 'correct' way to do it?I suppose if the rules that you validate against are kept within themodel ie. min and max allowable responses for the current question inmy case then your suggestion would be the 'correct' way of doing it.I think I will go with your suggestion but I would be interested tohear if you, or anyone else had any further opinions...Thanks again...Graham--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com, "Dimitrios Gianninas"[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Put a method to handle the validation of the form or forms in theview. Then when the user presses the button, validate the form(s) andif all is ok then fire the event that calls your command to dowhatever you want.> > Dimitrios Gianninas> RIA Developer> Optimal Payments Inc.> > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com]On Behalf Of grahampengelly> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 8:41 AM> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com> Subject: [flexcoders] Cairngorm... Where should this go?> > > > Hi> > I am building an assessment application with Cairngorm. All is going> swimmingly but I am wondering where I should put the following.> > The view collects the respondents answers and fires off an event,> containing them. The Controller picks this up and updates the Model...> Pretty standard stuff.> > My problem is that I need to validate the number of answers given. I'm> new to the MVC pattern so I am not sure where this should go on. I> want to give an alert or something like that to the user if the> answers aren't valid. Should I just create the alert in the command> that lives in the controller? This doesn't really seem right. Should I> raise an event from the model and subscribe to this in the view. This> seems more in keeping with what I perceive the roles of each aspect of> the architecture to be but seems a bit convoluted.> > At the end of the day I can get it to work in either of these and> probably a few other ways but as I have embarked on this architecture> I would like to make sure that I am doing it 'properly'...> > Thanks in advance...> > Graham> > > > > > -- > WARNING> ---> This electronic message and its attachments may containconfidential, proprietary or legally privileged information, which issolely for the use of the intended recipient. No privilege or otherrights are waived by any unintended transmission or unauthorizedretransmission of this message. If you are not the intended recipientof this message, or if you have received it in error, you shouldimmediately stop reading this message and delete it and allattachments from your system. The reading, distribution, copying orother use of this message or its attachments by unintended recipientsis unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mailin error, please notify the sender.> > AVIS IMPORTANT> --> Ce message électronique et ses pièces jointes peuvent contenir desrenseignements confidentiels, exclusifs ou légalement privilégiésdestinés au seul usage du destinataire visé. L'expéditeur original nerenonce à aucun privilège ou à aucun autre droit si le présent messagea été transmis involontairement ou s'il est retransmis sans sonautorisation. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé du présentmessage ou si vous l'avez reçu par erreur, veuillez cesserimmédiatement de le lire et le supprimer, ainsi que toutes ses piècesjointes, de votre système. La lecture, la distribution, la copie outout autre usage du présent message ou de ses pièces jointes par despersonnes autres que le destinataire visé ne sont pas autorisés etpourraient être illégaux. Si vous avez reçu ce courrier électroniquepar erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur.> AVIS IMPORTANT WARNING Ce message électronique et ses pièces jointes peuvent contenir des renseignements confidentiels, exclusifs ou légalement privilégiés destinés au seul usage du destinataire visé. L'expéditeur original ne renonce à aucun privilège ou à aucun autre d
