OK hey, appreciate your feedback - and the mask/regexp gives me another
string to my bow!

I do think using the DecimalFormat style patterns is much easier and
intuitive, but there is the issue
over JavaScript and there are issues with the DecimalFormat parse() method.
I think I need to
re-think this enhacement request so I'll drop it for the moment and perhaps
submit something different
at a later date.

Niall

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]


>
> --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree with both of you!
> >
> > Not having JavaScript implementation shouldn't be an issue - if people
> > want
> > it then someone would come up with it.
> >
> > However, because the approach I took was to modify the exiting number
> > validations (byte, short, long, integer, float, double) then it means
> > that where there is JavaScript validation (not all of them seem to have)
> > these will now fail if a pattern is used, because they don't take into
> > account the pattern.
> >
> > I would put some additional time on this, if a committer was willing to
> > implement it. But since David Graham has said he is -1 on this, doesn't
> > that
> > effectively make this enhacement request dead?
>
> There wasn't a vote so my -1 is more of an indication that I don't like
> the idea.  Mask is the most flexible validation that allows many things
> like formatted number validations.  If you can't get your regex to work
> you might try writing a custom validation action that uses DecimalFormat.
> If that works you could post a patch to bugzilla.  I encourage you to get
> the regex to work though because it will make life easier in the long run
> :-).
>
> David
>
> >
> > Niall
> >
> >
> > Richard Hightower wrote ...
> > > I agree about that sticky wicket, but....
> > >
> > > There are already validation rules that do not have client-side
> > support
> > (via
> > > JavaScript).
> > >
> > > At least this type of stuff would be nice in the contrib area.
> > >
> >
> > Ted Husted wrote ...
> > > In principle, I'd agree with Rick, since these type of patterns are
> > the
> > > standard way of doing this sort of thing on the Java platform.
> > >
> > > But, the sticky wicket is lack of a JavaScript implementation. People
> > would
> > > expect an implementation like this to include client-side support, as
> > the
> > > other validations do.
> > >
> > > -Ted.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:54:17 -0700, Richard Hightower wrote:
> > > > Niall,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't get a vote. I am not a committer. But if I did.... I would
> > > > vote +1 on the idea (I have not studied your implementation). I can
> > > > write regular expressions in a pinch, but why not support all of
> > > > the java.text.* in the validator rules (including currencey). I
> > > > like the idea.
> > > >
> > > > Rick Hightower
> > > > Developer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Struts/J2EE training -- http://www.arc-mind.com/strutsCourse.htm
> > > > Struts/J2EE consulting -- http://www.arc-
> > > > mind.com/consulting.htm#StrutsMentoring
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:38 PM To: Struts Developers List
> > > > Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK so how can it be done with mask?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > also, it doesn't get more basic than numbers...if it can be done
> > > > with mask, but its complicated, doesn't ease of use cut any ice?
> > > >
> > > > Niall
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent:
> > > > Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to
> > > >> support all variations of patterns.  I'm -1 on adding validators
> > > >> that duplicate what can already be done with mask.
> > > >>
> > > >> David
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Robert,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no
> > > >>> knowledge of regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration
> > > >>> applet and  I couldn't get it to (including your suggestion).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't
> > > >>> know how to
> > > >>> make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so
> > > >>> much more straight forward and designed for the task. Typically
> > > >>> as people are probably
> > > >>> using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to
> > > >>> screen, it then is
> > > >>> much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for
> > > >>> validation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to
> > > >>> validate numbers is a better way to do it - hence the
> > > >>> enhacement request:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Niall
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Robert Leland wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not
> > > >>>> correct)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> <field property="amount" depends="required,mask">
> > > >>>> <arg0 key="sale.amount" />
> > > >>>> <var>
> > > >>>> <var-name>mask</var-name>
> > > >>>> <var-value>\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)</var-value> </var> </field>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted
> > > >>> a patch to
> > > >>> bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number
> > > >>> validations to do this.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This patch allows an optional "numberPattern" variable to be
> > > >>> specified for
> > > >>> the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double
> > > >>> validations. For Example:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> <field property="amount" depends="required,integer"> <arg0
> > > >>> key="sale.amount" /> <var> <var-name>numberPattern</var-name>
> > > >>> <var-value>#,##0:(#,##0)</var-value> </var> </field>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is
> > > >>> used to parse
> > > >>> the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator
> > > >>> User Guide which describes all the standard suppiled
> > > >>> validations and shows examples of
> > > >>> usage, including using the new "numberPattern" variable.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks in advance for any feedback.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Niall
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>> ----- To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-
> > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> __________________________________
> > > >> Do you Yahoo!?
> > > >> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> > > >> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-
> > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to