Glad you have something that works, Ture.
The displayNameKey is always applied in the context of each individual
message, so I think it would work if you put a bundleName in each
@Jpf.Validate*. But it does seem reasonable to have a value that would
apply to all messages inside the @Jpf.ValidatableProperty.
Carlin, what do you think of that?
Rich
Ture Hoefner wrote:
>Thanks Rich,
> I have a ton of message keys delimited by '.', so I am going to use an
>alternative to binding expressions such as
>"${bundle.decValidation.errorRequired}".
>
> I can now see the bundleName attribute on the Jpf.ValidateRequired
>annotation (thanks). However, I still don't see how to set bundleName
>for the Jpf.ValidatableProperty annotation. Maybe the
>ValidatableProperty annotation was meant to have a bundleName attribute
>but it got missed?
>
> In any case, I found a workaround that works. I use an annotation on
>my form bean. It's not ideal because I'd rather keep the message bundle
>annotation with the base flow controller, but this is fine for now:
>
>
>@Jpf.FormBean
>(
> messageBundle="com.bea.jsptools.util.Validation"
>)
>public class RepositoryConfigForm extends FormData
>
>
>Ture
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rich Feit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:31 PM
>To: Beehive Users
>Subject: Re: using non-default MessageBundle with
>Jpf.ValidatableProperty
>
>Hi Ture,
>
>You should be able to get what you need by using the 'displayName' and
>'message' attributes instead of 'displayNameKey' and 'messageKey'. The
>former two can accept literal strings or expressions; the latter two
>simply refer directly to messages in a message bundle. ** Note that
>you'd need to use something other than '.' in your message key names --
>the expression language will try to bind into properties through each
>'.' **
>
>One alternative would be to use the 'bundleName' attribute in
>conjunction with 'messageKey'/'displayName', e.g.,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED](messageKey="error.required",
>bundleName="decValidation")
>
>Either way should work -- let me know.
>
>Rich
>
>
>
>
>
