I got it, but haven't had time to look yet. I'll take a look tonight.
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Mota [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 10:23 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework dou
MAIL
PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc:
ceforge.net Subject: RE:
[OS-webwork] Validation
the getter and the param type in the setter are the
same, or the Java introspector code can get confused.
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Mota [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:08 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] V
Hi,
Continuing my doubts about this topic ...
I'm debugging my form to see WHY even if I post some content at my validated fields
(using the XWork
validation framework and the interceptor) I get error messages.
The field types are corret at the validation.xml file (ranges and so on) ... names
or it or add it to this one. In general, I was
> > planning
> > > on doing validations using the validation framework and
> > anything else
> > > would be done in the execute() method. What do others think?
> > >
> &
ED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework doubt
>
>
> I personally like the fact that most actions do not have to
> deal with UI validations, and that it is nicely seperated. I
> think the grey area is when you may be required to do
> business validations for UI fi
See below
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Mota [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework doubt
>
>
>
> Hi Jason, guys,
>
> Now the interceptor is
ceforge.net
rom: Pat Lightbody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:24 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework doubt
> >
> >
> > Jason,
> > One request --
ect: Re: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework doubt
>
>
> Jason,
> One request -- when you move the logic in to an
> interceptor... can you use a Lifecycle interface rather than
> reflection?
>
> -Pat
> >
---
This
o see this change and doExecute() go away.
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Mota [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework doubt
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> &g
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Mota [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework doubt
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> >map of fieldErrors. It
Hi,
>map of fieldErrors. It WILL NOT stop execution just because you have an error. You
>can apply the
>DefaultWorkflowInterceptor after the validation to have it automatically return
>"input" if you have
any errors >applied to your Action. Otherwise, you can decide how to deal with them in
yo
at the top of my execute() method I just check ActionSupport.hasErrors()
INPUT if its got errors.
but now that Jason mentioned the DefaultWorkFlowInterceptor I think I
will use that instead, man theres so many things I still don't know
exist in WW2.
Samuel Mota wrote:
Hi,
I'm using the XWork
TECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 4:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [OS-webwork] Validation Framework doubt
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using the XWork validation framework but I'm in doubt
> about how to use it's results.
>
> The wiki says &q
Hi,
I'm using the XWork validation framework but I'm in doubt about how to use it's
results.
The wiki says " Bear in mind that even if errors are added due to failed
validation, the action
will still be executed."
So I must add the errors to the stack on my own doValidation() method? Seems
16 matches
Mail list logo
