@attribute name: is there something like this in the RI 1.2? I think that yes, so maybe we should go with their name for this.
@comparable: right, there is the interface name - I didn't think about that. But then the "equalsValidator" is named by the method it calls - so maybe we should take the method name here as well - "compareToValidator" or more simple "compareValidator" ? Forget about my suggestions if I start to enerve you - then just take the interface name ;) regards, Martin On 10/24/05, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comparingValidator works for me. As Alexander pointed out, I used > comparableValidator as a "first guess" because it works on any objects > implementing Comparable. > > I don't see the need for comparingValidator to depend on the > OptionalValidatorFramework, although the supporting "boolean wrapping > validator" that Alexander proposed might share code with the OVF > project. > > The OptionalValidatorFramework isn't quite ready yet. I'd say it's > 95% done functionally, but there's still some more work that needs to > be done to handle converters better. Now that we've got it > functional, we have a lot of cleanup that remains. I'm also not happy > with how the facelets integration was implemented, and I need to work > out those details with the Facelets folks. > > Does anyone have a suggestion on the attribute name for specifying an > optional identifier of the message as it is the message-files? This > attribute would be a good tomahawk extension for all validators. > > On 10/22/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > Just a naming thing - shouldn't it be <comparingValidator> or > > <compareValidator> instead of <comparableValidator>? > > -----/Original Message----- > > I guess the name is just a first throw... maybe comparable > > because it accepts any Comparable object... But part of bringing > > it up here is get some more opinions. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > By the way, are you guys going to move the optional validator > > framework over as well? > > -----/Original Message----- > > Well, I opened the jsf-comp project as a means to try out stuff > > in a shared way. the rules for getting access are more loose. > > And when the community thinks our stuff is good enough, I would > > really enjoy seeing it moved to the myfaces project. Consider > > our project as a playground for shareable components, a testbed > > before moving them to MyFaces. > > > > the comparable/comparing validator most likely will depend on the > > optional validator stuff. > > > > Does that sound good? > > > > regards, > > Alexander > > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Trainings in English and German
