Re: Validator and required dependency

2002-10-23 Thread James Turner
Rob Leland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Thanks for your experimentation, I had suspected something like this. In July patches were applied to the >Validator that changes its behavior. Specifically it no longer ignored blank fields. I was waiting till this weekend >when I get a solid block of tim

Re: Validator and required dependency

2002-10-22 Thread Rob Leland
---- From: James Turner [mailto:turner@;blackbear.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Validator and required dependency At 11:33 AM 10/22/2002, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Point noted :-) I'll let someone else explain what

RE: Validator and required dependency

2002-10-22 Thread James Turner
At 10:31 PM 10/22/2002, "Peterkofsky, Don" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not sure of the background on this thread, but there may be some misunderstanding with this. I looked at the canned rule sets, and was confused by the use of the "depends" attribute in the rules file, which appears to be t

RE: Validator and required dependency

2002-10-22 Thread Peterkofsky, Don
ted to hear and understand. -Original Message- From: James Turner [mailto:turner@;blackbear.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Validator and required dependency At 11:33 AM 10/22/2002, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >

Validator and required dependency

2002-10-22 Thread James Turner
At 11:33 AM 10/22/2002, Eddie Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Point noted :-) I'll let someone else explain what the rationale was for doing that. I don't know. I am aware >that there is change taking place in commons-validator, and also in the struts-specific validator, but I >couldn't real