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
----
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
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
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:
>
>
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
5 matches
Mail list logo