Yes, something like this. Don't know if the message needs to be included - can we find a way not to do this? What if you have several validators, but only one message component.
@using the default server side validators: Due to the reasons Adam has pointed out (potential security risk) it would be good to have validators which always do server side validation as well. regards, Martin On 4/18/06, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > After some brainstorming on the discussion here's what I come up with; > > <cv:requiredFieldValidator message="Value is required" highlight="true" > enablePopup="false" display="dynamic"> > <h:message for="someInputTextToBeValidated" > styleClass="someClass" /> > </cv:requiredFieldValidator> > > By this way the message will be displayed using the message component. Also > there are flags like enablePopup, display, highlight and more to provide > flexibility. The validators should use commons-validator also. > > Another idea will be to use the built-in standart validators rather than > seperate client validators above and in this case an attribute like > "enableClientScript" is needed. This will allow the validator validate at > client site. Validators than can do both client and server side validation > is the approach of Shale and .NET. > > Regards, > > Cagatay Civici > > > On 4/18/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes. > > > > That's the other thing I'd like to have - automatic client-side > > validation happening with the server side validation in place. It > > would be good to have something like a hook in the extended validators > > - with this hook, they are asked to render out their client-side > > validation javascript. > > > > Using this, separate validators wouldn't be necessary. > > > > Still, I think that the rendering question is very important. In the > > current state when working with ADF, I wished I could disable client > > side validation in ADF faces alltogether (I'm sure there is a way to > > do so, didn't look deeper into it so far). The popup box is just not > > context sensitive enough. > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > On 4/18/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 4/17/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > What I like about ADF faces is that it uses existing validators for > > > > > the client side validation. What I don't like is that it notifies > the > > > > > user with a popup box - not very interactive IMHO. > > > > > > I agree too - I'd like to feed that it into better schemes, > > > which I think is doable given the current APIs, esp. > > > popups floating by existing components. > > > > > > But to me, the really important issues aren't so much how it gets > > > rendered (which can be massaged down the line), but the > > > basic architectural ones, most particularly, how do you attach > > > client-side validation? For that, the only really clean answer > > > is that it should happen implicitly as a result of adding a > > > server-side validation, so that client-side validation is always > > > a strict subset of server-side validation. Any client-side validation > > > scheme that doesn't follow this pattern is a security risk. > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you tell the users that validation failed? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > Courses in English and German > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
