Robert Leland wrote:
Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may
be 100%. I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to
Beta status is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0
version which has released in Augustand been designated an
Ted Husted wrote:
Robert Leland wrote:
Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may
be 100%. I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to
Beta status is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0
version which has released in Augustand been
Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be
100%.
I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status is to
make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version which has
released in August
and been designated an Alpha. I propose that this
+1
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Struts Evangelist
http://www.struts-atlanta.org
678.910.8017
770.822.3359
AIM:jmitchtx
- Original Message -
From: Robert Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: [Short Term Plan] Struts
I agree 100%. +1 to using commons-validator 1.1.0.
David
--- Robert Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be
100%.
I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status
is to
make the nightly build of struts
+1
Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts. In fact it may be
100%.
I feel the only way to really promote commons-validator to Beta status
is to make the nightly build of struts depend on the 1.1.0 version which
has released in August
and been designated an Alpha. I propose
Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on
Validator 1.1.0
+1
Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts.
In
fact it may
be 100%.
I feel the only way to really
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on
Validator 1.1.0
+1
Over 99% of commons-validator usage is through struts.
In
fact it may
be 100%.
I feel the only way to really promote
-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:35 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on
Validator 1.1.0
Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We
still
need to use ActionErrors because
David Graham wrote:
Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We still need to use
ActionErrors because the ActionForm.validate() method returns an instance
of that class. ActionMessage should be used instead of ActionError
though.
Eventually we'll need to add a method that will allow
: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Short Term Plan] Struts to depend on Validator 1.1.0
David Graham wrote:
Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We still need to use
ActionErrors because the ActionForm.validate() method returns an instance
of that class
Maybe we can wait until it's time to add a form of validate that will
just take a mutable ActionContext and return void, and deprecate it all
at once.
Robert Leland wrote:
David Graham wrote:
Only ActionError was deprecated, not ActionErrors. We still need to use
ActionErrors because the
--- Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe we can wait until it's time to add a form of validate that will
just take a mutable ActionContext and return void, and deprecate it all
at once.
Well, ActionError was easily replaced with ActionMessage. Also, I updated
most references to
13 matches
Mail list logo