I've put an initial version of this validator at the following URL
(manually constructed since the link isn't active yet -- may have
typos).
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jsf-comp/componentsandbox/src/java/org/apache/myfaces/custom/comparetovalidator/CompareToValidator.java
It'll probably
-Original Message-
1) What should happen if the compared values do not implement
Comparable and no Comparable is provided?
Right now, it's passively passing validation. I wonder if it should
throw a FacesException (not ValidationException) instead?
-Original Message-
FacesExcepti
A few more questions.
1) What should happen if the compared values do not implement
Comparable and no Comparable is provided?
Right now, it's passively passing validation. I wonder if it should
throw a FacesException (not ValidationException) instead?
2) If either the foreign component value o
@attribute name:
Couldn't find anything in the 1.2 spec. Looks like it's been
postponed to 2.0 for everything but the required attribute, and for
the required attribute it's named "requiredMessage"
So I'm recommending that we use "message" as the attribute.
@validator name:
"compareToValidato
-Original Message-
@attribute name:
is there something like this in the RI 1.2? I think that yes, so maybe
we should go with their name for this.
-/Original Message-
+1
-Original Message-
@comparable: right, there is the interface name - I didn't think about that.
But the
> I'm also planning on having the comparisons done using the Comparable
> interface, so the validator would work only on objects implementing
> Comparable (but that seems like it'd probably cover anything worth
> comparing).
define an additional attribute (comparator) which allows the user to
spec
@attribute name:
is there something like this in the RI 1.2? I think that yes, so maybe
we should go with their name for this.
@comparable: right, there is the interface name - I didn't think about that.
But then the "equalsValidator" is named by the method it calls - so
maybe we should take the
comparingValidator works for me. As Alexander pointed out, I used
comparableValidator as a "first guess" because it works on any objects
implementing Comparable.
I don't see the need for comparingValidator to depend on the
OptionalValidatorFramework, although the supporting "boolean wrapping
val
-Original Message-
Just a naming thing - shouldn't it be or
instead of ?
-/Original Message-
I guess the name is just a first throw... maybe comparable
because it accepts any Comparable object... But part of bringing
it up here is get some more opinions.
-Original Message---
I agree with Jesse on his preferences.
Just a naming thing - shouldn't it be or
instead of ?
By the way, are you guys going to move the optional validator
framework over as well?
regards,
Martin
On 10/21/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Original Message-
>
-Original Message-
>
Ha ha! You're the expert on designing validators that wrap other
validators. I'll let you write that one! :-)
-/Original Message-
Remember how I first objected to have OVW defined also as Validator...
Just a few seconds later a first flash of cascaded vali
>
Ha ha! You're the expert on designing validators that wrap other
validators. I'll let you write that one! :-)
On 10/21/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> 1) is what I'm currently
> doing.
> 2)
>
> a) Operator values being "eq", "ne",
-Original Message-
1) is what I'm currently
doing.
2)
a) Operator values being "eq", "ne", "lt", "gt", "ge", and "le" in
addition to (or maybe instead of)
b) "==", "!=", ">", "<", "=>'", and "=<".
-/Original Message-
I'd prefer
from 1 and 2: proposal 2
from a and b: pro
I'm working on a greater-than validator, along the lines of the
tomahawk equalsValidator.
However, it occurs to me that it'd probably be better if one validator
could support ==, !=, >, <, =>, and =<
I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions for the best way to represent it.
is what I'm currently
14 matches
Mail list logo
