Yes, ok, right, thats a point. But I still cannot see a clear alternative to handle it at all, not in the xml way and even less in the annotation way (which would be our preferred realization approach)
In a model driven action I have to handle in model, or? Ok I could specify it direct on action level without vistor validator like model.xxx, but in this case I have the field errors for attributes model.xxx and all the error rendering does not work out of the box (as model is directly on value stack without model prefix) Could you explain the approach you initial described a little more in detail? Thank you, Basti newton.dave wrote: > > If you're doing validation differently based on the > action then trying to do validation based on the model > doesn't seem like a good idea: you're not trying to > validate the model the same way for every action. > > --- lbastil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Could someone please state whether I have error in >> reasoning here or not? >> >> ... even a "I would think its not possible with >> build in features yet" would >> help me. >> >> Thank you a lot, >> Basti >> >> >> lbastil wrote: >> > >> > OK, sorry, I may have to describe it a little more >> in detail or I did not >> > understand the whole point ... >> > >> > Yes, lets assume I have: >> > >> > <action name="meth1" >> > class="foo.FooClass" >> > method="method1" .../> >> > <action name="meth2" >> > class="foo.FooClass" >> > method="method2" .../> >> > >> > FooClass-meth1-validation.xml >> > First set of validations >> > >> > FooClass-meth2-validation.xml >> > Second set of validations >> > >> > Action class FooClass is modeldriven, so something >> like >> > >> > Public ModelClass getModel() ... >> > >> > In result I want to check different attributes of >> ModelClass. >> > >> > But in both validation files on action level >> > (FooClass-meth1-validation.xml, >> FooClass-meth2-validation.xml) >> > I had to specify the same, something like: >> > ... >> > <field name="model"> >> > <field-validator type="visitor"> >> > false >> > <message></message> >> > </field-validator> >> > </field> >> > ... >> > >> > when I read documentation correctly, on model >> level I would then create >> > another validation xml file like: >> > ModelClass-validation.xml >> > >> > Here the validations on attribute level have to be >> done, but here it is >> > not possible to distinguish between the action >> methods meth1 and meth2, >> > or? >> > >> > Thank you again, >> > Basti >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > newton.dave wrote: >> >> >> >> You said you wanted different validation for >> different >> >> methods in an action, yes? >> >> >> >> <action name="meth1" >> >> class="foo.FooClass" >> >> method="method1" .../> >> >> <action name="meth2" >> >> class="foo.FooClass" >> >> method="method2" .../> >> >> >> >> FooClass-meth1-validation.xml >> >> First set of validations >> >> >> >> FooClass-meth2-validation.xml >> >> Second set of validations >> >> >> >> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you want to do. >> >> >> >> Regarding annotations, AFAIK you can set the >> >> "validateAnnotatedMethodOnly" attribute on the >> >> validation interceptor [1] and annotate methods >> in >> >> your action class as normal. Haven't done that >> myself, >> >> so I don't know if it works or not. >> >> >> >> d. >> >> >> >> [1] >> >> >> > http://struts.apache.org/2.x/docs/validations-annotation.html >> >> >> >> --- lbastil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Hm, but as I have model driven action, >> >>> for both methods (even if I want to validate >> >>> different attributes later on) >> >>> the first I have to use is VisitorFieldValidator >> >>> with appendPrefix=false for >> >>> the model attribute of the action class. >> >>> >> >>> So at this level there is no difference, thats >> why I >> >>> cannot see how it >> >>> should help. >> >>> >> >>> Could you explain your suggestion a little more >> in >> >>> detail? >> >>> Would it be realizable with annotation approach >> too? >> >>> >> >>> Thank you very much in advance, >> >>> Basti >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> newton.dave wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > Create two validation XML files, one for each >> >>> method. >> >>> > You can differentiate between them in a couple >> >>> > different ways, the easiest may be to just >> create >> >>> two >> >>> > action mappings, one for each method. >> >>> > >> >>> > d. >> >>> > >> >>> > --- lbastil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Is there any way with the build in >> declarative >> >>> >> validation possibilities in >> >>> >> struts 2 (annotations, xml) >> >>> >> to do something like conditional validation >> in >> >>> the >> >>> >> following sense: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> in the action class I have a model class, >> where >> >>> on >> >>> >> action method one i want >> >>> >> to validate >> >>> >> a special subset of model attributes and on >> >>> action >> >>> >> method two another subset >> >>> >> of attributes? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> (note the model in action is used >> "modeldriven") >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Thank you for any idea, >> >>> >> Basti >> >>> >> -- >> >>> >> View this message in context: >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> > http://www.nabble.com/-s2--conditional-validation-tf4843582.html#a13857280 >> >>> >> Sent from the Struts - User mailing list >> archive >> >>> at >> >>> >> Nabble.com. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> >>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >> >>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > === message truncated === > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-s2--conditional-validation-tf4843582.html#a13899014 Sent from the Struts - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
