Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
Graham OK, I decided to look further into your suggestion, but didn't get very far and I think its because mask doesn't work. I started with a simple expression of [\d,]* to validate that the input only contains numbers or a comma. Whatever I input though validator always passed it as valid. Looking into validator it uses Perl5Util.match(pattern, value) This utility uses the Perl5Matcher.contains(value, pattern) method which only checks that the value contains the pattern - not that matches (it says so in the Perl5Util documentation). Isn't this the wrong thing to do - shouldn't validator be using the Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) method. I had a look at commons validator test thinking this must be tested for and I must be mis-understanding it - but mask seems to be the one thing there are no tests for - and there don't seem to be any in struts either for FieldChecks.validateMask()) Anyway, am I right - is this a bug, or am I just using it wrongly? Niall P.S. If I am right, then it implies no one is using mask and I think thats an argument for my simpler number validation. - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 Thanks Niall Robert Leland wrote: So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct) field property=amount depends=required,mask arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namemask/var-name var-value\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)/var-value /var /field I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a patch to bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number validations to do this. This patch allows an optional numberPattern variable to be specified for the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double validations. For Example: field property=amount depends=required,integer arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namenumberPattern/var-name var-value#,##0:(#,##0)/var-value /var /field If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is used to parse the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale). I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator User Guide which describes all the standard suppiled validations and shows examples of usage, including using the new numberPattern variable. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Niall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus - 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: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
I agree with both of you! Not having JavaScript implementation shouldn't be an issue - if people want it then someone would come up with it. However, because the approach I took was to modify the exiting number validations (byte, short, long, integer, float, double) then it means that where there is JavaScript validation (not all of them seem to have) these will now fail if a pattern is used, because they don't take into account the pattern. I would put some additional time on this, if a committer was willing to implement it. But since David Graham has said he is -1 on this, doesn't that effectively make this enhacement request dead? Niall Richard Hightower wrote ... I agree about that sticky wicket, but There are already validation rules that do not have client-side support (via JavaScript). At least this type of stuff would be nice in the contrib area. Ted Husted wrote ... In principle, I'd agree with Rick, since these type of patterns are the standard way of doing this sort of thing on the Java platform. But, the sticky wicket is lack of a JavaScript implementation. People would expect an implementation like this to include client-side support, as the other validations do. -Ted. On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:54:17 -0700, Richard Hightower wrote: Niall, I don't get a vote. I am not a committer. But if I did I would vote +1 on the idea (I have not studied your implementation). I can write regular expressions in a pinch, but why not support all of the java.text.* in the validator rules (including currencey). I like the idea. Rick Hightower Developer Struts/J2EE training -- http://www.arc-mind.com/strutsCourse.htm Struts/J2EE consulting -- http://www.arc- mind.com/consulting.htm#StrutsMentoring -Original Message- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:38 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] OK so how can it be done with mask? also, it doesn't get more basic than numbers...if it can be done with mask, but its complicated, doesn't ease of use cut any ice? Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 Thanks Niall Robert Leland wrote: So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct) field property=amount depends=required,mask arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namemask/var-name var-value\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)/var-value /var /field I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a patch to bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number validations to do this. This patch allows an optional numberPattern variable to be specified for the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double validations. For Example: field property=amount depends=required,integer arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namenumberPattern/var-name var-value#,##0:(#,##0)/var-value /var /field If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is used to parse the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale). I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator User Guide which describes all the standard suppiled validations and shows examples of usage, including using the new numberPattern variable. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Niall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev- [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com
Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
--- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graham OK, I decided to look further into your suggestion, but didn't get very far and I think its because mask doesn't work. I know it works because I use it in my apps :-). I started with a simple expression of [\d,]* to validate that the input only contains numbers or a comma. Whatever I input though validator always passed it as valid. ORO's test applet is really helpful when testing regexs. Try putting ^ at the front and $ at the end of the pattern. ORO seems to need these to work properly unlike Java 1.4 regexs. David Looking into validator it uses Perl5Util.match(pattern, value) This utility uses the Perl5Matcher.contains(value, pattern) method which only checks that the value contains the pattern - not that matches (it says so in the Perl5Util documentation). Isn't this the wrong thing to do - shouldn't validator be using the Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) method. I had a look at commons validator test thinking this must be tested for and I must be mis-understanding it - but mask seems to be the one thing there are no tests for - and there don't seem to be any in struts either for FieldChecks.validateMask()) Anyway, am I right - is this a bug, or am I just using it wrongly? Niall P.S. If I am right, then it implies no one is using mask and I think thats an argument for my simpler number validation. - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 Thanks Niall Robert Leland wrote: So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct) field property=amount depends=required,mask arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namemask/var-name var-value\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)/var-value /var /field I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a patch to bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number validations to do this. This patch allows an optional numberPattern variable to be specified for the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double validations. For Example: field property=amount depends=required,integer arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namenumberPattern/var-name var-value#,##0:(#,##0)/var-value /var /field If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is used to parse the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale). I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator User Guide which describes all the standard suppiled validations and shows examples of usage, including using the new numberPattern variable. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Niall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus - 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] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
--- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with both of you! Not having JavaScript implementation shouldn't be an issue - if people want it then someone would come up with it. However, because the approach I took was to modify the exiting number validations (byte, short, long, integer, float, double) then it means that where there is JavaScript validation (not all of them seem to have) these will now fail if a pattern is used, because they don't take into account the pattern. I would put some additional time on this, if a committer was willing to implement it. But since David Graham has said he is -1 on this, doesn't that effectively make this enhacement request dead? There wasn't a vote so my -1 is more of an indication that I don't like the idea. Mask is the most flexible validation that allows many things like formatted number validations. If you can't get your regex to work you might try writing a custom validation action that uses DecimalFormat. If that works you could post a patch to bugzilla. I encourage you to get the regex to work though because it will make life easier in the long run :-). David Niall Richard Hightower wrote ... I agree about that sticky wicket, but There are already validation rules that do not have client-side support (via JavaScript). At least this type of stuff would be nice in the contrib area. Ted Husted wrote ... In principle, I'd agree with Rick, since these type of patterns are the standard way of doing this sort of thing on the Java platform. But, the sticky wicket is lack of a JavaScript implementation. People would expect an implementation like this to include client-side support, as the other validations do. -Ted. On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:54:17 -0700, Richard Hightower wrote: Niall, I don't get a vote. I am not a committer. But if I did I would vote +1 on the idea (I have not studied your implementation). I can write regular expressions in a pinch, but why not support all of the java.text.* in the validator rules (including currencey). I like the idea. Rick Hightower Developer Struts/J2EE training -- http://www.arc-mind.com/strutsCourse.htm Struts/J2EE consulting -- http://www.arc- mind.com/consulting.htm#StrutsMentoring -Original Message- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:38 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] OK so how can it be done with mask? also, it doesn't get more basic than numbers...if it can be done with mask, but its complicated, doesn't ease of use cut any ice? Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 Thanks Niall Robert Leland wrote: So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct) field property=amount depends=required,mask arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namemask/var-name var-value\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)/var-value /var /field I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a patch to bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number validations to do this. This patch allows an optional numberPattern variable to be specified for the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double validations. For Example: field property=amount depends=required,integer arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namenumberPattern/var-name var-value#,##0:(#,##0)/var-value /var /field If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is used to parse the number
Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
Hey thanks for your help - what you suggested worked (i.e. using ^[\d,]*$) - I was using the ORO demo, but if you don't put the right stuff in:-) OK, I'm picking up regex slowly - so this works because ^ is for the beginning of a line and % is for the end of a line. Apologies for the doesn't work slander then - but wouldn't it be better to use Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) and then there would be no need to specify the ^ and $ characters at the start and end - simpler and less confusing? This could be done and would be backward compatible. Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:39 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graham OK, I decided to look further into your suggestion, but didn't get very far and I think its because mask doesn't work. I know it works because I use it in my apps :-). I started with a simple expression of [\d,]* to validate that the input only contains numbers or a comma. Whatever I input though validator always passed it as valid. ORO's test applet is really helpful when testing regexs. Try putting ^ at the front and $ at the end of the pattern. ORO seems to need these to work properly unlike Java 1.4 regexs. David Looking into validator it uses Perl5Util.match(pattern, value) This utility uses the Perl5Matcher.contains(value, pattern) method which only checks that the value contains the pattern - not that matches (it says so in the Perl5Util documentation). Isn't this the wrong thing to do - shouldn't validator be using the Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) method. I had a look at commons validator test thinking this must be tested for and I must be mis-understanding it - but mask seems to be the one thing there are no tests for - and there don't seem to be any in struts either for FieldChecks.validateMask()) Anyway, am I right - is this a bug, or am I just using it wrongly? Niall P.S. If I am right, then it implies no one is using mask and I think thats an argument for my simpler number validation. - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 Thanks Niall Robert Leland wrote: So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct) field property=amount depends=required,mask arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namemask/var-name var-value\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)/var-value /var /field I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a patch to bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number validations to do this. This patch allows an optional numberPattern variable to be specified for the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double validations. For Example: field property=amount depends=required,integer arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namenumberPattern/var-name var-value#,##0:(#,##0)/var-value /var /field If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is used to parse the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale). I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator User Guide which describes all the standard suppiled validations and shows examples of usage, including using the new numberPattern variable. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Niall
Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
OK hey, appreciate your feedback - and the mask/regexp gives me another string to my bow! I do think using the DecimalFormat style patterns is much easier and intuitive, but there is the issue over JavaScript and there are issues with the DecimalFormat parse() method. I think I need to re-think this enhacement request so I'll drop it for the moment and perhaps submit something different at a later date. Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:46 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with both of you! Not having JavaScript implementation shouldn't be an issue - if people want it then someone would come up with it. However, because the approach I took was to modify the exiting number validations (byte, short, long, integer, float, double) then it means that where there is JavaScript validation (not all of them seem to have) these will now fail if a pattern is used, because they don't take into account the pattern. I would put some additional time on this, if a committer was willing to implement it. But since David Graham has said he is -1 on this, doesn't that effectively make this enhacement request dead? There wasn't a vote so my -1 is more of an indication that I don't like the idea. Mask is the most flexible validation that allows many things like formatted number validations. If you can't get your regex to work you might try writing a custom validation action that uses DecimalFormat. If that works you could post a patch to bugzilla. I encourage you to get the regex to work though because it will make life easier in the long run :-). David Niall Richard Hightower wrote ... I agree about that sticky wicket, but There are already validation rules that do not have client-side support (via JavaScript). At least this type of stuff would be nice in the contrib area. Ted Husted wrote ... In principle, I'd agree with Rick, since these type of patterns are the standard way of doing this sort of thing on the Java platform. But, the sticky wicket is lack of a JavaScript implementation. People would expect an implementation like this to include client-side support, as the other validations do. -Ted. On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:54:17 -0700, Richard Hightower wrote: Niall, I don't get a vote. I am not a committer. But if I did I would vote +1 on the idea (I have not studied your implementation). I can write regular expressions in a pinch, but why not support all of the java.text.* in the validator rules (including currencey). I like the idea. Rick Hightower Developer Struts/J2EE training -- http://www.arc-mind.com/strutsCourse.htm Struts/J2EE consulting -- http://www.arc- mind.com/consulting.htm#StrutsMentoring -Original Message- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:38 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] OK so how can it be done with mask? also, it doesn't get more basic than numbers...if it can be done with mask, but its complicated, doesn't ease of use cut any ice? Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 Thanks Niall Robert Leland wrote: So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct
Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
Niall - If you do add on to this patch to support JavaScript validations of numberFormats, there is probably some existing JavaScript code available that you can use. I would start by looking at Matt Kruse's JavaScript Date Functions, which you can find here: http://www.mattkruse.com/javascript/date/ Matt - Original Message - From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:48 AM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] OK hey, appreciate your feedback - and the mask/regexp gives me another string to my bow! I do think using the DecimalFormat style patterns is much easier and intuitive, but there is the issue over JavaScript and there are issues with the DecimalFormat parse() method. I think I need to re-think this enhacement request so I'll drop it for the moment and perhaps submit something different at a later date. Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:46 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with both of you! Not having JavaScript implementation shouldn't be an issue - if people want it then someone would come up with it. However, because the approach I took was to modify the exiting number validations (byte, short, long, integer, float, double) then it means that where there is JavaScript validation (not all of them seem to have) these will now fail if a pattern is used, because they don't take into account the pattern. I would put some additional time on this, if a committer was willing to implement it. But since David Graham has said he is -1 on this, doesn't that effectively make this enhacement request dead? There wasn't a vote so my -1 is more of an indication that I don't like the idea. Mask is the most flexible validation that allows many things like formatted number validations. If you can't get your regex to work you might try writing a custom validation action that uses DecimalFormat. If that works you could post a patch to bugzilla. I encourage you to get the regex to work though because it will make life easier in the long run :-). David Niall Richard Hightower wrote ... I agree about that sticky wicket, but There are already validation rules that do not have client-side support (via JavaScript). At least this type of stuff would be nice in the contrib area. Ted Husted wrote ... In principle, I'd agree with Rick, since these type of patterns are the standard way of doing this sort of thing on the Java platform. But, the sticky wicket is lack of a JavaScript implementation. People would expect an implementation like this to include client-side support, as the other validations do. -Ted. On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:54:17 -0700, Richard Hightower wrote: Niall, I don't get a vote. I am not a committer. But if I did I would vote +1 on the idea (I have not studied your implementation). I can write regular expressions in a pinch, but why not support all of the java.text.* in the validator rules (including currencey). I like the idea. Rick Hightower Developer Struts/J2EE training -- http://www.arc-mind.com/strutsCourse.htm Struts/J2EE consulting -- http://www.arc- mind.com/consulting.htm#StrutsMentoring -Original Message- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:38 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] OK so how can it be done with mask? also, it doesn't get more basic than numbers...if it can be done with mask, but its complicated, doesn't ease of use cut any ice? Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used
Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
--- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey thanks for your help - what you suggested worked (i.e. using ^[\d,]*$) - I was using the ORO demo, but if you don't put the right stuff in:-) OK, I'm picking up regex slowly - so this works because ^ is for the beginning of a line and % is for the end of a line. I think you meant $ instead of % but yes that's correct. Apologies for the doesn't work slander then - but wouldn't it be better to use Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) and then there would be no need to specify the ^ and $ characters at the start and end - simpler and less confusing? This could be done and would be backward compatible. I really haven't looked at the differences between matches() and contains() so I don't know if it's backwards compatible. You could try changing it and let us know what happens. David Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:39 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graham OK, I decided to look further into your suggestion, but didn't get very far and I think its because mask doesn't work. I know it works because I use it in my apps :-). I started with a simple expression of [\d,]* to validate that the input only contains numbers or a comma. Whatever I input though validator always passed it as valid. ORO's test applet is really helpful when testing regexs. Try putting ^ at the front and $ at the end of the pattern. ORO seems to need these to work properly unlike Java 1.4 regexs. David Looking into validator it uses Perl5Util.match(pattern, value) This utility uses the Perl5Matcher.contains(value, pattern) method which only checks that the value contains the pattern - not that matches (it says so in the Perl5Util documentation). Isn't this the wrong thing to do - shouldn't validator be using the Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) method. I had a look at commons validator test thinking this must be tested for and I must be mis-understanding it - but mask seems to be the one thing there are no tests for - and there don't seem to be any in struts either for FieldChecks.validateMask()) Anyway, am I right - is this a bug, or am I just using it wrongly? Niall P.S. If I am right, then it implies no one is using mask and I think thats an argument for my simpler number validation. - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 Thanks Niall Robert Leland wrote: So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct) field property=amount depends=required,mask arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namemask/var-name var-value\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)/var-value /var /field I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a patch to bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number validations to do this. This patch allows an optional numberPattern variable to be specified for the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double validations. For Example: field property=amount depends=required,integer arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namenumberPattern/var-name var-value#,##0:(#,##0)/var-value /var /field
Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
I already tried it, and it is backward compatible. The thing about Perl5Util is it provides a convinience method of match(value, pattern) which creates a Perl5Compiler, builds a cache of compiled patterns and calls the Perl5Matcher.contains() method. There isn't an equivalent convinience method that calls the Perl5Matcher.matches() method. Replacing: boolean match = Perl5Util.match(value, pattern) requires: Perl5Compiler compiler = new Perl5Compiler(); Pattern compiledPattern = compiler.compile(pattern); Perl5Matcher matcher = new Perl5Matcher(); boolean match = matcher.matches(value, compiledPattern); But then, it would be less efficient as the pattern is being compiled every time. It would be straight forward to do the equivalent of Perl5Util and create a cache. I might have a look at this later and submit a patch to Commons. Niall - Original Message - David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey thanks for your help - what you suggested worked (i.e. using ^[\d,]*$) - I was using the ORO demo, but if you don't put the right stuff in:-) OK, I'm picking up regex slowly - so this works because ^ is for the beginning of a line and % is for the end of a line. I think you meant $ instead of % but yes that's correct. Apologies for the doesn't work slander then - but wouldn't it be better to use Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) and then there would be no need to specify the ^ and $ characters at the start and end - simpler and less confusing? This could be done and would be backward compatible. I really haven't looked at the differences between matches() and contains() so I don't know if it's backwards compatible. You could try changing it and let us know what happens. David Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:39 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graham OK, I decided to look further into your suggestion, but didn't get very far and I think its because mask doesn't work. I know it works because I use it in my apps :-). I started with a simple expression of [\d,]* to validate that the input only contains numbers or a comma. Whatever I input though validator always passed it as valid. ORO's test applet is really helpful when testing regexs. Try putting ^ at the front and $ at the end of the pattern. ORO seems to need these to work properly unlike Java 1.4 regexs. David Looking into validator it uses Perl5Util.match(pattern, value) This utility uses the Perl5Matcher.contains(value, pattern) method which only checks that the value contains the pattern - not that matches (it says so in the Perl5Util documentation). Isn't this the wrong thing to do - shouldn't validator be using the Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) method. I had a look at commons validator test thinking this must be tested for and I must be mis-understanding it - but mask seems to be the one thing there are no tests for - and there don't seem to be any in struts either for FieldChecks.validateMask()) Anyway, am I right - is this a bug, or am I just using it wrongly? Niall P.S. If I am right, then it implies no one is using mask and I think thats an argument for my simpler number validation. - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request
RE: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
I can vouch that the mask works. Send me your complete xml file or at least cut and paste the field element in the email and I will take a look. -Original Message- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:03 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] Graham OK, I decided to look further into your suggestion, but didn't get very far and I think its because mask doesn't work. I started with a simple expression of [\d,]* to validate that the input only contains numbers or a comma. Whatever I input though validator always passed it as valid. Looking into validator it uses Perl5Util.match(pattern, value) This utility uses the Perl5Matcher.contains(value, pattern) method which only checks that the value contains the pattern - not that matches (it says so in the Perl5Util documentation). Isn't this the wrong thing to do - shouldn't validator be using the Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) method. I had a look at commons validator test thinking this must be tested for and I must be mis-understanding it - but mask seems to be the one thing there are no tests for - and there don't seem to be any in struts either for FieldChecks.validateMask()) Anyway, am I right - is this a bug, or am I just using it wrongly? Niall P.S. If I am right, then it implies no one is using mask and I think thats an argument for my simpler number validation. - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 Thanks Niall Robert Leland wrote: So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct) field property=amount depends=required,mask arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namemask/var-name var-value\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)/var-value /var /field I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a patch to bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number validations to do this. This patch allows an optional numberPattern variable to be specified for the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double validations. For Example: field property=amount depends=required,integer arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namenumberPattern/var-name var-value#,##0:(#,##0)/var-value /var /field If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is used to parse the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale). I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator User Guide which describes all the standard suppiled validations and shows examples of usage, including using the new numberPattern variable. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Niall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT RE: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
Heres to lots more grief in the future hey lol! - Original Message - From: Richard Hightower [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: OT RE: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] Grief imparts the most knowledge. What would joy mean if we did not have agony?! I've learned a few things from you grief. You contributed a patch, and found another bug with the mask rule. Your grief has benefitted the group. Thanks for sharing your grief. Rick Hightower Developer Struts/J2EE training -- http://www.arc-mind.com/strutsCourse.htm Struts/J2EE consulting -- http://www.arc-mind.com/consulting.htm#StrutsMentoring -Original Message- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 11:23 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] Caused me some griefplus a complete lack knowledge of RegExp until yesterday. Anyway, thanks to everyone for the help and input - I know more today than I did yesterday. I've put a enhancement request into Bugzilla with patch on Commons to change this - fingers crossed it will be approved. Niall - Original Message - From: Richard Hightower [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 6:00 PM Subject: RE: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] Niall, Good catch! I was wondering why I had to always specify ^ and $. I wrote a few of my own validator rules (e.g., zip code and phone number), and I used regex from java. I used the match function. This explains some mysteries in my head. -Original Message- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 8:30 AM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] I already tried it, and it is backward compatible. The thing about Perl5Util is it provides a convinience method of match(value, pattern) which creates a Perl5Compiler, builds a cache of compiled patterns and calls the Perl5Matcher.contains() method. There isn't an equivalent convinience method that calls the Perl5Matcher.matches() method. Replacing: boolean match = Perl5Util.match(value, pattern) requires: Perl5Compiler compiler = new Perl5Compiler(); Pattern compiledPattern = compiler.compile(pattern); Perl5Matcher matcher = new Perl5Matcher(); boolean match = matcher.matches(value, compiledPattern); But then, it would be less efficient as the pattern is being compiled every time. It would be straight forward to do the equivalent of Perl5Util and create a cache. I might have a look at this later and submit a patch to Commons. Niall - Original Message - David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey thanks for your help - what you suggested worked (i.e. using ^[\d,]*$) - I was using the ORO demo, but if you don't put the right stuff in:-) OK, I'm picking up regex slowly - so this works because ^ is for the beginning of a line and % is for the end of a line. I think you meant $ instead of % but yes that's correct. Apologies for the doesn't work slander then - but wouldn't it be better to use Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) and then there would be no need to specify the ^ and $ characters at the start and end - simpler and less confusing? This could be done and would be backward compatible. I really haven't looked at the differences between matches() and contains() so I don't know if it's backwards compatible. You could try changing it and let us know what happens. David Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:39 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graham OK, I decided to look further into your suggestion, but didn't get very far and I think its because mask doesn't work. I know it works because I use it in my apps :-). I started with a simple expression of [\d,]* to validate that the input only contains numbers or a comma. Whatever I input though validator always passed it as valid. ORO's test applet is really helpful when testing regexs. Try putting ^ at the front and $ at the end of the pattern. ORO seems to need these to work properly unlike Java 1.4 regexs. David Looking into validator it uses Perl5Util.match(pattern, value) This utility uses the Perl5Matcher.contains
Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
Niall Pemberton wrote: I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a patch to bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number validations to do this. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 This patch allows an optional numberPattern variable to be specified for the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double validations. For Example: field property=amount depends=required,integer arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namenumberPattern/var-name var-value#,##0:(#,##0)/var-value /var /field So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct) field property=amount depends=required,mask arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namemask/var-name var-value\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)/var-value /var /field If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is used to parse the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale). I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator User Guide which describes all the standard suppiled validations and shows examples of usage, including using the new numberPattern variable. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Niall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
OK so how can it be done with mask? also, it doesn't get more basic than numbers...if it can be done with mask, but its complicated, doesn't ease of use cut any ice? Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 Thanks Niall Robert Leland wrote: So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct) field property=amount depends=required,mask arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namemask/var-name var-value\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)/var-value /var /field I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a patch to bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number validations to do this. This patch allows an optional numberPattern variable to be specified for the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double validations. For Example: field property=amount depends=required,integer arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namenumberPattern/var-name var-value#,##0:(#,##0)/var-value /var /field If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is used to parse the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale). I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator User Guide which describes all the standard suppiled validations and shows examples of usage, including using the new numberPattern variable. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Niall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus - 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: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
Niall, I don't get a vote. I am not a committer. But if I did I would vote +1 on the idea (I have not studied your implementation). I can write regular expressions in a pinch, but why not support all of the java.text.* in the validator rules (including currencey). I like the idea. Rick Hightower Developer Struts/J2EE training -- http://www.arc-mind.com/strutsCourse.htm Struts/J2EE consulting -- http://www.arc-mind.com/consulting.htm#StrutsMentoring -Original Message- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:38 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] OK so how can it be done with mask? also, it doesn't get more basic than numbers...if it can be done with mask, but its complicated, doesn't ease of use cut any ice? Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 Thanks Niall Robert Leland wrote: So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct) field property=amount depends=required,mask arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namemask/var-name var-value\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)/var-value /var /field I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a patch to bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number validations to do this. This patch allows an optional numberPattern variable to be specified for the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double validations. For Example: field property=amount depends=required,integer arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namenumberPattern/var-name var-value#,##0:(#,##0)/var-value /var /field If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is used to parse the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale). I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator User Guide which describes all the standard suppiled validations and shows examples of usage, including using the new numberPattern variable. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Niall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
In principle, I'd agree with Rick, since these type of patterns are the standard way of doing this sort of thing on the Java platform. But, the sticky wicket is lack of a JavaScript implementation. People would expect an implementation like this to include client-side support, as the other validations do. -Ted. On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:54:17 -0700, Richard Hightower wrote: Niall, I don't get a vote. I am not a committer. But if I did I would vote +1 on the idea (I have not studied your implementation). I can write regular expressions in a pinch, but why not support all of the java.text.* in the validator rules (including currencey). I like the idea. Rick Hightower Developer Struts/J2EE training -- http://www.arc-mind.com/strutsCourse.htm Struts/J2EE consulting -- http://www.arc- mind.com/consulting.htm#StrutsMentoring -Original Message- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:38 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] OK so how can it be done with mask? also, it doesn't get more basic than numbers...if it can be done with mask, but its complicated, doesn't ease of use cut any ice? Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 Thanks Niall Robert Leland wrote: So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct) field property=amount depends=required,mask arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namemask/var-name var-value\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)/var-value /var /field I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a patch to bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number validations to do this. This patch allows an optional numberPattern variable to be specified for the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double validations. For Example: field property=amount depends=required,integer arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namenumberPattern/var-name var-value#,##0:(#,##0)/var-value /var /field If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is used to parse the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale). I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator User Guide which describes all the standard suppiled validations and shows examples of usage, including using the new numberPattern variable. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Niall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev- [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus -- --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev- [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
I agree about that sticky wicket, but There are already validation rules that do not have client-side support (via JavaScript). At least this type of stuff would be nice in the contrib area. -Original Message- From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:10 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: RE: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] In principle, I'd agree with Rick, since these type of patterns are the standard way of doing this sort of thing on the Java platform. But, the sticky wicket is lack of a JavaScript implementation. People would expect an implementation like this to include client-side support, as the other validations do. -Ted. On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:54:17 -0700, Richard Hightower wrote: Niall, I don't get a vote. I am not a committer. But if I did I would vote +1 on the idea (I have not studied your implementation). I can write regular expressions in a pinch, but why not support all of the java.text.* in the validator rules (including currencey). I like the idea. Rick Hightower Developer Struts/J2EE training -- http://www.arc-mind.com/strutsCourse.htm Struts/J2EE consulting -- http://www.arc- mind.com/consulting.htm#StrutsMentoring -Original Message- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:38 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] OK so how can it be done with mask? also, it doesn't get more basic than numbers...if it can be done with mask, but its complicated, doesn't ease of use cut any ice? Niall - Original Message - From: David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151] The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to support all variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that duplicate what can already be done with mask. David --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert, I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion). I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't know how to make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as people are probably using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to screen, it then is much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for validation. I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement request: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151 Thanks Niall Robert Leland wrote: So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not correct) field property=amount depends=required,mask arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namemask/var-name var-value\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)/var-value /var /field I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted a patch to bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number validations to do this. This patch allows an optional numberPattern variable to be specified for the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double validations. For Example: field property=amount depends=required,integer arg0 key=sale.amount / var var-namenumberPattern/var-name var-value#,##0:(#,##0)/var-value /var /field If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is used to parse the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale). I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator User Guide which describes all the standard suppiled validations and shows examples of usage, including using the new numberPattern variable. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Niall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev- [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus -- --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev- [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
