My first thought is that there could be a Validator (or ActionFormValidator, etc.) interface with a method like:
ActionErrors validate(ActionForm form, any other needed params);
We could provide a compliant implementation class for the commons validator. Just like RequestProcessor, the validator implementation could be configured in struts-config.xml.
I think this addresses Ted's concerns of mandating the use of certain technologies because it creates a pluggable service layer.
What do you think?
David
From: "James Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Validator Integration
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:30:09 -0400
I have no idea on the level of effort required, but it would be nice to be
able to drop in my own Validator implementation like I can logging, jdbc or
message resources.
Your thought?
James Mitchell
Software Engineer/Struts Evangelist
http://www.open-tools.org
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not
sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Graham [mailto:dgraham1980@;hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Validator Integration
>
>
> I'm mainly suggesting this to get some new ideas out there. I
> don't see how
> it would break backwards compatibility. As I stated earlier, if
> a developer
> doesn't use the validator or define a validation rule for a form then the
> validate() method could just return null as usual. You wouldn't have to
> override validate to maintain compatibility. Is there something else I'm
> missing?
>
> It's not necessarily a burden to extend a different class but I do think
> it's beneficial for the framework to inherently support a high class
> validation framework without the developer being exposed to extending
> special classes.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: Validator Integration
> >Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:16:10 -0500
> >
> >David:
> >
> >we saw recently that you and I disagree on the "core" nature of the
> >validator package. But even if 90% of Struts users decide to
> validate with
> >Validator, I don't think that's a compelling argument to change the
> >behavior of ActionForm.
> >
> >First, doing so would break backwards compatibility. Second, by tying
> >relatively complex validation into the core class, you sort of cut off
> >other possible ways to extend ActionForm. Yes, you could argue that
> >subclasses can override the validate() method and subsequently ignore
> >anything in the ActionForm class which refers to validator, but
> that's not
> >really very clean design. Keep the core classes simple and
> focused on the
> >minimal requirements for interacting with other objects, and add
> subclasses
> >whenever more specialized behavior is needed.
> >
> >Is it a great burden to extend a different class if you want to use the
> >validator framework to validate form input? I do agree that having two
> >separate subclasses which vary only in how they key to
> validation rules is
> >unnecessarily complex, but otherwise, what benefits do such a
> change bring?
> >
> >Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >At 11:42 AM -0600 2002/10/25, David Graham wrote:
> >>Thanks for the input Ted. I was only suggesting changing
> struts-config if
> >>validator was truely merged; I agree that optional components
> don't belong
> >>there. The validation rules file should be separate but I'm suggesting
> >>that the validator not be a plugin and have an entry similar to
> >>message-resources or form-beans.
> >>
> >>Now the question is whether the validator is a core component?
> >>I don't know what you all define as core but I believe this is a core
> >>aspect. How many forms have you built that didn't need
> validation of at
> >>least one required field (if no form fields are required I question the
> >>value of the form)?
> >>
> >>What are the various options for validation? I see 2 built
> into Struts:
> >>coding a form bean's validate() method and using the validator.
> What I'm
> >>suggesting is that the ActionForm.validate() method use the
> validator by
> >>default.
> >>
> >>I just don't see any need to subclass a different ActionForm
> class to use
> >>the validator when it seems that this will become the
> predominant form of
> >>validation.
> >>
> >>David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>To: Struts Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>Subject: Re: Validator Integration
> >>>Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:09:10 -0400
> >>>
> >>>I've been using the Validator for going on three years now, but
> >>>I don't think I would ever want to describe it as an integal
> >>>part of Struts. Struts provides a validation hotspot, and we
> >>>provide the Validation as something people can plug into that
> >>>spot. But we want to be very clear that it is only one of many
> >>>possible solutions to validation.
> >>>
> >>>We provide direct support for the Validator as a convenience,
> >>>but IMHO, it is not part of the true Struts core. (Of course, I
> >>>don't consider the tags part of the true Struts core either =:)
> >>>
> >>>I'd also be very cold on amending the struts-config with the
> >>>specifics for any optional component, the Validator included.
> >>>Ideally, the Validation config could be shared with other
> >>>platforms (not just Struts), and should be a standalone file.
> >>>
> >>>As mentioned elsewhere, there were two classes since some
> >>>people (or maybe one person) wanted to key on the action path
> >>>rather than the action attribute. But if we were patch this to
> >>>use a switch, mores the better.
> >>>
> >>>-Ted.
> >>>
> >>>10/25/2002 10:34:52 AM, David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>It struck me the other day that the validator could be further
> >>>integrated
> >>>>into struts. I'm not sure about my ideas so I want to get
> >>>your thoughts. y
> >>>>Why should people need to subclass ValidatorActionForm instead
> >>>of ActionForm
> >>>>to use the validator? What forms have you built that didn't
> >>>need
> >>>>validation?
> >>>>
> >>>>My idea is that the ValidatorActionForm and ValidatorForm (why
> >>>are there 2?)
> >>>>behavior should be included in ActionForm and have those
> >>>classes removed. I
> >>> >think this will maintain backward compatibility because if the
> >>>developer
> >>>>hasn't defined any validation rules for a form then we could
> >>>return null
> >>>>from validate().
> >>>>
> >>>>Further, we could include validator configuration tags in
> >>>struts-config.xml
> >>>>instead of using a plugin. This would signify that validator
> >>>is an integral
> >>>>piece of struts that most people want to use (which I believe
> >>>they do).
> >>>>
> >>>>This is probably a post 1.1 idea but I thought I'd throw it
> >>>out here.
> >>>>What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>>David
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>______________________________________________________________
> >>>___
> >>>>Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN.
> >>>>http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-
> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-
> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> >>>For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
> >>
> >>
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> >>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> >>For additional commands, e-mail:
> >><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >--
> >--
> >* Joe Germuska { [EMAIL PROTECTED] }
> >"It's pitiful, sometimes, if they've got it bad. Their eyes get glazed,
> >they go white, their hands tremble.... As I watch them I often
> feel that a
> >dope peddler is a gentleman compared with the man who sells records."
> > --Sam Goody, 1956
> >
> >--
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> ><mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
> >For additional commands, e-mail:
> ><mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
