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,
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 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 the
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 (disturbingly)
--- 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
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.
--- 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
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:
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 could
--- 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
10 matches
Mail list logo
