Ok, Martin.
I went to fix this and realized that there is indeed a setMessage
method in ValidatorBase. So I was wrong about that.
However, the getters here don't hold value bindings like they should.
I'm fixing this instead and renaming the issue.
Also, for some reason, you prefixed the file
Yeah, thanks - I didn't prefix it, it was the user who submitted the patch.
regards,
Martin
On 9/22/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, Martin.
I went to fix this and realized that there is indeed a setMessage
method in ValidatorBase. So I was wrong about that.
However, the
Martin, this was a valiant attempt, but you've just destroyed facelets
compatibility for all of the validator components using the message
attribute.
Please don't put any processing logic in the Tag classes. In fact,
I'm hoping that we will soon code-generate all jsf Tag classes since
they
Hmmm... Why not provide a custom Facelets-Tag for this?
The thing is that also the component will be generated - so we can't
really have much custom code there, right?
regards,
Martin
On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin, this was a valiant attempt, but you've just
On 9/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm... Why not provide a custom Facelets-Tag for this?
Because that's the wrong approach to fixing the problem.
The thing is that also the component will be generated - so we can't
really have much custom code there, right?
Why would
In case it's not clear, by component I really mean validator in this context.
On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm... Why not provide a custom Facelets-Tag for this?
Because that's the wrong approach to fixing the
Sorry, yes, I meant validator as well. Well, at least the property
setting - getting - restoreState and saveState parts are generated. So
where would you incorporate the check?
Maybe we should just get rid of the detailMessage at all, and use
message instead.
regards,
Martin
On 9/21/06, Mike
I'd put the check inside the validate method itself.
This is what I've done in my own custom validators that have
interdependent attributes.
On 9/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, yes, I meant validator as well. Well, at least the property
setting - getting -
Also, message = summaryMessage + detailMessage, not simply detailMessage.
At least, I'm pretty sure that's how it currently works.
On 9/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, yes, I meant validator as well. Well, at least the property
setting - getting - restoreState and
Yes, that will work, but only if we save the additional attribute :-/
You don't have a summaryMessage in there right now - I don't understand your
summaryMessage + detailMessage, not simply detailMessage. comment.
regards,
Martin
On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also,
Old value
msg = MessageUtils.getMessage(FacesMessage.SEVERITY_ERROR, message, args);
New Value:
Locale locale = MessageUtils.getCurrentLocale();
String summaryText = MessageUtils.substituteParams(locale,
getSummaryMessage(), args);
String detailText = MessageUtils.substituteParams(locale,
Hey Martin, I just want to apologize in advance for slowing down your
attempt to single-handedly close out every JIRA issue. :-)
On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Old value
msg = MessageUtils.getMessage(FacesMessage.SEVERITY_ERROR, message, args);
New Value:
Locale
As I see it, when getSummaryMessage() returns null, the results should
be the same.
regards,
Martin
On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Old value
msg = MessageUtils.getMessage(FacesMessage.SEVERITY_ERROR, message, args);
New Value:
Locale locale =
I won't be closing out every single one. There will be a lot more to go ;)
regards,
Martin
On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Martin, I just want to apologize in advance for slowing down your
attempt to single-handedly close out every JIRA issue. :-)
On 9/21/06,
Shall I open a Jira issue on this and solve it later, or were you
planning on reworking it now? Quite honestly, I'm fine with fixing
it on Monday (or whenver I next have time) and letting you close
another 100 issues :-)
On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd put the check
Yeah, open an issue, and I'll carry on for now ;)
regards,
Martin
On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shall I open a Jira issue on this and solve it later, or were you
planning on reworking it now? Quite honestly, I'm fine with fixing
it on Monday (or whenver I next have
16 matches
Mail list logo
