Ok, thanks for the explanation, Igor.
Maybe, then, you can tell me if there is a better way of doing what I'm
doing...
I'm working on customising the required messages for each field. For
example, for a "contact" form, rather than writing:
- A value for field 'Enter your email' is required
- A value for field 'Subject' is required
- A value for field 'Enter your message text below' is required
I prefer to write:
- Please enter your email address
- Please enter the subject
- Please enter your message text
The only reasonable way I could think of doing this was to override the
(deprecated!) RequiredValidator, just so I could write this in my
properties file:
EmailRequiredValidator = Please enter your email address
SubjectRequiredValidator = Please enter the subject
MessageBodyRequiredValidator = Please enter your message text
This works, but:
1. the parent class is deprecated
2. from what you write above, it sounds like
this could cause a lot of processing for
nothing
3. I don't like this heavy-handed approach, anyway!
Do you see a better way?
Cheers,
Dave
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 19:15 -0700, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> the whole refactor started because validators were doing a lot of repeitive
> stuff.
>
> for example lets say you have a textfield for a purchase quantity. you add
> three validators to it, requred, min1) and checkinventory.
>
> min(1) = { if (input==null) return; int i=typeconvertinput(); if (i<1)
> error(); }
> checkinventory() = { if (input==null) return; int i=typeconvert(); if
> (i>getavailable()) error(); }
>
> what do we notice...
>
> both validators have input==null check because they will run whether or not
> field is required or not. both validators have to perform typeconversion -
> which is potentially an expensive operation.
>
> so lets refactor type conversion into the formcomponent. great, but the
> problem is we dont know if we have to convert a "" or not. so we also factor
> out the required check.
>
> the nice thing about it is that now our validators look like this
>
> min(1) = { if (i<1) error(); }
> checkinventory() = { if (i>getavailable()) error(); }
>
> so now not every validator has to check for null, and type conversion is
> only performed/checked once and in a single place.
>
> -igor
>
> On 8/8/07, David Leangen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I guess this was already discussed at some point on the dev list, but I
> > couldn't find the thread.
> >
> > I'm just very curious about the motivation of deprecating
> > RequiredValidator in favour of the setRequired method.
> >
> > Knowing how clever you devs are, I'm sure there's a good reason, but at
> > first glace, to me the RequiredValidator seems like a more elegant
> > solution...
> >
> >
> > Would somebody mind explaining this decision, if you have the time?
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
