--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> IMO the commons validator javascript is pretty horrible -
> each validator assumes there is a method named after the
> form which returns an array [...]
The original issue wasn't the JavaScript validation code itself, it was the
inability to plug in
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any more comments?
>
> The question has come up a few times on the user list in the last week or
> two. My proposal is an incremental improvement (if tiny); if we switch to
> commons-validator at least their JavaScript code
Unfortunately I didn't get to meet any GXP guys, but I did see some very
interesting GWT and Gears demos which mean I'm definately going to take
a deeper look at them.
Musachy Barroso wrote:
Yes, take a look here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/sandbox/trunk/struts2-gxp-plugin/src/main/r
--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Gabriel Belingueres wrote:
> Switching to commons-validator because of its javascript code only?
No. The thread contains the original issue and comments.
Dave
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
Switching to commons-validator because of its javascript code only?
Would it be imprudent just grab the js code without adding
commons-validator as a dependency?
Last time I checked seemed as if commons-validator was kind of
dormant. Still, seems like it is the lowest resistance path to follow.
Pl
--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> I blame Velocity. :)
Oh, duh, right... forgot about that.
I was hoping there'd be yet something else I had to keep in mind; things aren't
complicated enough :p
I'll probably move most/all the constants into the struts.xml and add a comment
saying that
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I ran the archetype it created a "tutorial" directory. The
> src/main/resources/struts.properties file (appended) didn't have all the
> comments/etc. in the struts.properties from starter-archetype.
>
> It's (disturbi
--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> Different from what? I'm not sure what you're comparing.
(ObCaveat: when I did this I had been up for two days, so...)
When I ran the archetype it created a "tutorial" directory. The
src/main/resources/struts.properties file (appended) didn't have all t
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 9/12/08, Wendy Smoak wrote:
>> (Dave, if you'd like to make that change on the branch, it can go
>> into the next release. Is it relevant on trunk, where the archetype
>> needs to be fixed to work with Struts 2.1
--- On Fri, 9/12/08, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> (Dave, if you'd like to make that change on the branch, it can go
> into the next release. Is it relevant on trunk, where the archetype
> needs to be fixed to work with Struts 2.1?)
It's not clear to me where the tutorial/src/main/resources/struts.prope
Any more comments?
The question has come up a few times on the user list in the last week or two.
My proposal is an incremental improvement (if tiny); if we switch to
commons-validator at least their JavaScript code could be re-used.
Dave
--- On Wed, 9/10/08, Dave Newton wrote:
> --- On Tue, 9
11 matches
Mail list logo
