@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
@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:
compareToValidator
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
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
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
I agree with Jesse on his preferences.
Just a naming thing - shouldn't it be comparingValidator or
compareValidator instead of comparableValidator?
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)
-Original Message-
Just a naming thing - shouldn't it be comparingValidator or
compareValidator instead of comparableValidator?
-/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
-Original Message-
1) greaterThanValidator for=startDateInput/ is what I'm currently
doing.
2) comparableValidator for=startDateInput operator=gt/
a) Operator values being eq, ne, lt, gt, ge, and le in
addition to (or maybe instead of)
b) ==, !=, , , =', and =.
-/Original
t:booleanValidator op=or
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) greaterThanValidator for=startDateInput/ is what I'm
-Original Message-
t:booleanValidator op=or
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
