You can still use the validator: binding prefix, which allows what you want.
We plan on fixing this at a minimum in 4.1, but it'll probably make its way
back out to 4.0 as well.
On 12/26/05, Paul Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You're right -- adding this binding does the trick:
>
> "translator=translator:number"
>
> It seems wrong that I need to do this, however, since the translation
> already happens automatically (and works fine) when it comes time to
> actually drop the value into the bookQuantity property (which is
> declared as an Integer).
>
> Something smells bad here -- and it's not just the cruft in the docs.
> (Although fixing the docs before the 4.0 release would be a good
> idea....) At this point, I have a massive declaration for what should
> be a very simple thing, a required positive integer field:
>
> @Component(
> type="TextField", id="bookQuantity",
> bindings = {
> "value=ognl:bookQuantity",
> "translator=translator:number",
> "validators=validators:required,min=1" } )
> public abstract TextField getBookQuantityComponent();
> public abstract Integer getBookQuantity();
> public abstract void setBookQuantity(Integer value);
>
> Look at how little useful information that mess actually conveys;
> look at how many things get repeated:
>
> "TextField" : 2x
> The string "[B|b]ookQuantity": 5x
> That fact that the property is a number : 4x (translator, min,
> getter, setter)
>
> Suppose that:
>
> (1) there were some default naming conventions for properties named
> xxxxComponent being paired with property xxxx,
>
> (2) the @Component annotation were capable of inferring the type from
> the return type of the getter method (why not?), and
>
> (3) either the min validator parsed strings for itself, or validators
> had access to the implicit translation that occurs when populating a
> non-String property.
>
> I would then be able to reduce the annotation above to:
>
> @Component( bindings = { "validators=validators:required,min=1" } )
> public abstract TextField getBookQuantityComponent();
> public abstract Integer getBookQuantity();
> public abstract void setBookQuantity(Integer value);
>
> If any of ideas 1-3 seem reasonable to others, I would be willing to
> work on implementing them....
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
> On Dec 26, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
>
> > No you're right. This is something I recently discovered as
> > well....Unfortunately you'll have to also give it a "translator"
> > binding. I
> > think int(integer?) is one.
> >
> > On 12/26/05, Paul Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have a text field in a form, and I want to make sure that the user
> >> enters a positive integer into it. I'm utterly befuddled about how to
> >> accomplish this in a tidy way using Tapestry's new validation system.
> >>
> >> Here's my component:
> >>
> >> @Component(
> >> type="TextField", id="bookQuantity",
> >> bindings = { "value=ognl:bookQuantity",
> >> "validators=validators:min=1" } )
> >> public abstract TextField getBookQuantityComponent();
> >> public abstract Integer getBookQuantity();
> >> public abstract void setBookQuantity(Integer value);
> >>
> >> If I type a value into this field, I get a ClassCastException at
> >> Min.java:53:
> >>
> >> Number value = (Number) object;
> >>
> >> The object that's being passed in is a string. Clearly the "min"
> >> validator expects a number to be passed in, but I don't see where my
> >> string is going to be converted to a number.
> >>
> >> The documentation is kind of broken on this front. The TextField docs
> >> tell me:
> >>
> >> "A TextField may be decorated by the Form's validation delegate,
> >> but
> >> does not have a validator, so is limited in editting properties
> >> types
> >> beyond string. In most cases, the ValidField component is
> >> preferred."
> >>
> >> And the ValidField docs tell me (under a big red "WARNING" heading):
> >>
> >> "This component has been deprecated; Tapestry 4.0 adds even
> >> better
> >> support for validation to TextField, TextArea and most other
> >> for
> >> element component."
> >>
> >> Lovely. The example on the page about validators shows an email
> >> address, which is of course a string.
> >>
> >> I'm sure that this made sense to someone at some point, but that
> >> person is not me. Surely I'm missing something obvious...?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> >> Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
