Re: Client-side validation extensions

2008-09-16 Thread Dave Newton
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,

struts.properties file in the 2.0.x starter archetype

2008-09-16 Thread Wendy Smoak
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?)

Re: struts.properties file in the 2.0.x starter archetype

2008-09-16 Thread Dave Newton
--- 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

Re: struts.properties file in the 2.0.x starter archetype

2008-09-16 Thread Wendy Smoak
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)

Re: struts.properties file in the 2.0.x starter archetype

2008-09-16 Thread Dave Newton
--- 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

Re: Client-side validation extensions

2008-09-16 Thread Gabriel Belingueres
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.

Re: Client-side validation extensions

2008-09-16 Thread Dave Newton
--- 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

Re: Google Dev Day

2008-09-16 Thread Al Sutton
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:

Re: Client-side validation extensions

2008-09-16 Thread Niall Pemberton
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

Re: Client-side validation extensions

2008-09-16 Thread Dave Newton
--- 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