this may not repro in some US locales like kansas, oklahoma or alabama.
Al Maw wrote:
>
>
> "5 must be smaller than 3"
>
> Which it can't be, not even for very small values of 5.
> Thoughts?
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.na
I'm on the subject in the book, so I need an answer now. Are we or aren't we?
pro: better feedback
con: need to acquire new feedback resource bundles for all languages.
I'm 0 on the issue, but do need a decision quickly. The solution may
follow later.
I appreciate the argument that people don'
Looks like the Javadoc suffers from the same issue - certainly on
1.2.5, and it looks like in 1.2.x svn as well.
On 7/12/07, Ryan Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As long as you're fixing those messages, I think they have a couple
of other problems (I'm using 1.2, but it looks like 1.3 has th
As long as you're fixing those messages, I think they have a couple
of other problems (I'm using 1.2, but it looks like 1.3 has the same
issues).
First, both messages are off by one . When you create a
MaximumValidator with a value of 3, the value is inclusive so 3 is a
valid input. But t
On 7/6/07, Al Maw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The current default validation messages in Application.properties make
no logical sense.
At the moment, if you put in a value that is larger than a
NumberValidator maximum it says:
"5 must be smaller than 3"
Which it can't be, not even for very sm
The current default validation messages in Application.properties make
no logical sense.
At the moment, if you put in a value that is larger than a
NumberValidator maximum it says:
"5 must be smaller than 3"
Which it can't be, not even for very small values of 5.
To fix this, we need to d
