Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
Robert Leland wrote: Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be 100%. I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version which has released in Augustand been designated an Alpha. This being the case, we might also roll a Struts 1.2.0 release after the dependency changes, so as to expose the updated validator to the widest possible audience. I don't believe the nightly build is up to GA standards yet. I expect that we will need to better document migrating from 1.0/1.1 with deprecrations to 1.2 without deprecations. But the best way to do that might be to run a milestone and see what people ask about. Of course, we can always do a 1.2.1 once the Commons-Validator 1.1.x is GA. So, we wouldn't have to make any heroic efforts on the 1.2.0 release. Just a milestone of Struts with this dependency change. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
Ted Husted wrote: Robert Leland wrote: Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be 100%. I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version which has released in Augustand been designated an Alpha. This being the case, we might also roll a Struts 1.2.0 release after the dependency changes, so as to expose the updated validator to the widest possible audience. I don't believe the nightly build is up to GA standards yet. I expect that we will need to better document migrating from 1.0/1.1 with deprecrations to 1.2 without deprecations. But the best way to do that might be to run a milestone and see what people ask about. That would be very helpfull ! Of course, we can always do a 1.2.1 once the Commons-Validator 1.1.x is GA. So, we wouldn't have to make any heroic efforts on the 1.2.0 release. Just a milestone of Struts with this dependency change. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
+1 -- James Mitchell Software Engineer / Struts Evangelist http://www.struts-atlanta.org 678.910.8017 770.822.3359 AIM:jmitchtx - Original Message - From: Robert Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 1:14 PM Subject: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0 Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be 100%. I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version which has released in August and been designated an Alpha. I propose that this Sunday Sept 28 th that we switch over to the 1.1.0 version of Validator, then quickly release Version 1.1.1 which has had additional numerious improvements in it's Javascript validation. Othewise I honestly see how Validator 1.1.0 is ever going to get enough usage to ever be promoted to beta status. Reactions. - 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: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
I agree 100%. +1 to using commons-validator 1.1.0. David --- Robert Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be 100%. I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version which has released in August and been designated an Alpha. I propose that this Sunday Sept 28 th that we switch over to the 1.1.0 version of Validator, then quickly release Version 1.1.1 which has had additional numerious improvements in it's Javascript validation. Othewise I honestly see how Validator 1.1.0 is ever going to get enough usage to ever be promoted to beta status. Reactions. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
+1 Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be 100%. I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version which has released in August and been designated an Alpha. I propose that this Sunday Sept 28 th that we switch over to the 1.1.0 version of Validator, then quickly release Version 1.1.1 which has had additional numerious improvements in it's Javascript validation. Othewise I honestly see how Validator 1.1.0 is ever going to get enough usage to ever be promoted to beta status. Reactions. - 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: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
+1 here too Also note that in deprecating ActionErrors (whomever did that, it's lost in the bowels of my e-mail archive), it broke all the default validators because they had ActionErrors in their method signatures. I released a fix for it today. James -Original Message- From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0 +1 Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be 100%. I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version which has released in August and been designated an Alpha. I propose that this Sunday Sept 28 th that we switch over to the 1.1.0 version of Validator, then quickly release Version 1.1.1 which has had additional numerious improvements in it's Javascript validation. Othewise I honestly see how Validator 1.1.0 is ever going to get enough usage to ever be promoted to beta status. Reactions. - 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: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We still need to use ActionErrors because the ActionForm.validate() method returns an instance of that class. ActionMessage should be used instead of ActionError though. David --- James Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 here too Also note that in deprecating ActionErrors (whomever did that, it's lost in the bowels of my e-mail archive), it broke all the default validators because they had ActionErrors in their method signatures. I released a fix for it today. James -Original Message- From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0 +1 Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be 100%. I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version which has released in August and been designated an Alpha. I propose that this Sunday Sept 28 th that we switch over to the 1.1.0 version of Validator, then quickly release Version 1.1.1 which has had additional numerious improvements in it's Javascript validation. Othewise I honestly see how Validator 1.1.0 is ever going to get enough usage to ever be promoted to beta status. Reactions. - 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] __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
Ok, color me confused. Why then is are the validator methods being called with an ActionMessages object rather than an ActionErrors object? That's what was breaking things. (This is what happens when you step away to deal with the Real World for a few months...) James -Original Message- From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:35 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: RE: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0 Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We still need to use ActionErrors because the ActionForm.validate() method returns an instance of that class. ActionMessage should be used instead of ActionError though. David --- James Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 here too Also note that in deprecating ActionErrors (whomever did that, it's lost in the bowels of my e-mail archive), it broke all the default validators because they had ActionErrors in their method signatures. I released a fix for it today. James -Original Message- From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0 +1 Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be 100%. I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version which has released in August and been designated an Alpha. I propose that this Sunday Sept 28 th that we switch over to the 1.1.0 version of Validator, then quickly release Version 1.1.1 which has had additional numerious improvements in it's Javascript validation. Othewise I honestly see how Validator 1.1.0 is ever going to get enough usage to ever be promoted to beta status. Reactions. - 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] __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com - 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: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
David Graham wrote: Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We still need to use ActionErrors because the ActionForm.validate() method returns an instance of that class. ActionMessage should be used instead of ActionError though. Eventually we'll need to add a method that will allow us to deprecate ActionForm.validate(), just as Action.execute() deprecated Action.perform(). The only reason I haven't done that is I couldn't think of a good name maybe valid(), validateForm(), doValidate(), checkFields(), checkForm() ... ??? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
Some other suggestions: findErrors() getErrors() getErrorMessages() getActionMessages() I like doValidate(), validateForm(), getActionMessages() and getErrorMessages(). Matt - Original Message - From: Robert Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0 David Graham wrote: Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We still need to use ActionErrors because the ActionForm.validate() method returns an instance of that class. ActionMessage should be used instead of ActionError though. Eventually we'll need to add a method that will allow us to deprecate ActionForm.validate(), just as Action.execute() deprecated Action.perform(). The only reason I haven't done that is I couldn't think of a good name maybe valid(), validateForm(), doValidate(), checkFields(), checkForm() ... ??? - 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: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
Maybe we can wait until it's time to add a form of validate that will just take a mutable ActionContext and return void, and deprecate it all at once. Robert Leland wrote: David Graham wrote: Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We still need to use ActionErrors because the ActionForm.validate() method returns an instance of that class. ActionMessage should be used instead of ActionError though. Eventually we'll need to add a method that will allow us to deprecate ActionForm.validate(), just as Action.execute() deprecated Action.perform(). The only reason I haven't done that is I couldn't think of a good name maybe valid(), validateForm(), doValidate(), checkFields(), checkForm() ... ??? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we can wait until it's time to add a form of validate that will just take a mutable ActionContext and return void, and deprecate it all at once. Well, ActionError was easily replaced with ActionMessage. Also, I updated most references to ActionErrors with ActionMessages. I only left ActionErrors in validation related methods. So, I'm fine with leaving ActionError deprecated for the 1.2 release. David Robert Leland wrote: David Graham wrote: Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We still need to use ActionErrors because the ActionForm.validate() method returns an instance of that class. ActionMessage should be used instead of ActionError though. Eventually we'll need to add a method that will allow us to deprecate ActionForm.validate(), just as Action.execute() deprecated Action.perform(). The only reason I haven't done that is I couldn't think of a good name maybe valid(), validateForm(), doValidate(), checkFields(), checkForm() ... ??? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
