It may be worth looking at the 'review' framework used in Antelope (zebra.tigris.org) - this basically add a alternative validation option and you could use its services to plug in common validatin if you wanted to.
Ben Note changed email ________________________________ Ben Gidley tel: 01753 804000 Analyst ddi: 01753 804108 Anite fax: 01753 804123 353 Buckingham Avenue mobile: 07788 754303 Slough web: http://www.anite.com/publicsector Berkshire personal: http://www.gidley.co.uk SL1 4PF email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: Wayne Lovely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 July 2004 16:59 > To: Turbine Users List > Subject: Re: commons-validation > > > I'm not sure if this is good way to do it, but it is the > approach that I've taken: > > 1. Make a utility class to wrap commons-validator to deal with: > > loading a validator config > init and run the validator > check the validator for errors > > 2. On a per action basis: > > make an instance of the utility class > pass in : > ruleFile (String), > formBean (JavaBean), > formName (String), > errorMsgs (Hashtable) > and get a boolean back indicating whether there were > errors or not > > What this allows me to do, is to split my validator config > files if I want. > From a resource perspective, this is expensive, but I was > not ready to look at how to implement a service for this. > > > Wayne > > > > Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > > >"Mark Lybarger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >I admit that I've looked at the validator some time ago and then it > >looked to me like one big kludge. I don't know whether this > has changed > >(this was long before the first validator release) but the > fact that it > >seems to have been a part of Struts suggests, that it should > be stable > >and proven. > > > >I don't know if someone has already combined commons-validator and > >Turbine but I would be interested in code examples. > > > > Regards > > Henning > > > > > > > >>doh, sorry. s/commons-logging/commons-validator > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Mark Lybarger > >>>Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 10:11 AM > >>>To: 'Turbine Users List' (E-mail) > >>>Subject: commons-logging with turbine > >>> > >>> > >>>We're interested in using commons-logging flexability with our > >>>turbine applications. We're currently using intake for > validating our > >>>form information, but need more robust validation (cross field > >>>validations, etc). Is the validator easily swapable? Is there > >>>documentation/experience out there of easily using the > >>>commons-validator (or a derivitive) with turbine? Our velocity > >>>templates would also need to easily identify if a > particular field is > >>>valid or not... thoughts? > >>>suggestions? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>----------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > >>>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] > > > > Scanned for viruses by MessageLabs > Scanned for viruses by MessageLabs. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed. This email is intended for the named recipient only, and may contain confidential information and proprietary material. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited.
