and what happens when someone wants ${label} at row {0} column {1} is
required? do we start passing in arrays, lists, or maps for imodels to
validators?
why not just do
textfield.setlabel(new model("first name at row "+row));
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Hoover, William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I'm proposing would not require the same "first name" model on both
> validators. I might not have been clear enough in my explanation...
>
> StringValidator.minimum='${label}' with value '${input}' is shorter than
> the minimum of ${minimum} characters.
>
> CustomStringValidator.minimum='${label}' with value '${input}' at row
> {0} is shorter than the minimum of ${minimum} characters.
>
> MyUsernameValidator.unique='${label}' with value '${input}' at row {0}
> is not unique.
>
> ==============================
>
> Use Case 1:
>
> add(new textfield("fname").add(stringvalidator.minimum(5));
>
> results in- 'fNameId' with value 'abc' is shorter than the minimum of 5
> characters.
>
> ==============================
>
> Use Case 2:
>
> add(new textfield("fname").setlabel(new model("first
> name")).add(stringvalidator.minimum(5));
>
> results in- 'first name' with value 'abc' is shorter than the minimum of
> 5 characters.
>
> ==============================
>
> Use Case 3:
>
> StringResourceModel srm = new
> StringResourceModel("CustomStringValidator.minimum", null, null, new
> Object[]{ rowIndex });
>
> add(new textfield("fname").add(stringvalidator.minimum(5, srm));
>
> results in- 'fNameId' with value 'abc' at row 10 is shorter than the
> minimum of 5 characters.
>
> ==============================
>
> Use Case 4:
>
> StringResourceModel srm = new
> StringResourceModel("CustomStringValidator.minimum", null, null, new
> Object[]{ rowIndex });
>
> add(new textfield("fname").setlabel(new model("first
> name")).add(stringvalidator.minimum(5, srm));
>
> results in- 'first name' with value 'abc' at row 10 is shorter than the
> minimum of 5 characters.
>
> ==============================
>
> Use Case 5:
>
> StringResourceModel srm = new
> StringResourceModel("CustomStringValidator.minimum", null, null, new
> Object[]{ rowIndex });
>
> add(new textfield("fname").setlabel(new model("first
> name")).add(stringvalidator.minimum(5, srm)).add(new
> MyUsernameValidator());
>
> results in- 'first name' with value 'abc' at row 10 is shorter than the
> minimum of 5 characters.
>
> results in- 'first name' with value 'abc' at row 10 is not unique.
>
> ==============================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:41 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Providing IModel to Validators
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Hoover, William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> sure, if you know to override NumberValidator.minimum with:
>>
>> label.myminimum=My Object at row: {0} with value
>> NumberValidator.minimum=${label} '${input}' must be smaller than
>> ${minimum}
>>
>> It seems odd because:
>> 1) NumberValidator.minimum (or any other entry in
>> Application.properties) does not use ${label} by default
>
> i have argued for this, but ive been met with resistance. reasoning was
> that not everyone uses setLabel() for every component.
>
>> 2) label.myminimum has to be worded in a way that would accommodate
>> all types of IValidator that may be used
>
> right, the ones in application.properties are generic. of course you can
> override the message just for that page/component by simply defining
> your own NumberValidator.minimum key
>
> and if i remember correctly you can do without the label entirely,
> defining your own componentid.NumberValidator.minimum - but dont quote
> me on this
>
>> 3) label.myminimum shouldn't really exist on it's own
>
> of course not, you are calling setlabel(new
> resourcemodel("label.minimum")) on that one specific component, its not
> meant to be reusable
>
>> 4) It's not very intuitive to use the label because... well... it's a
>> label, not a validation message :o)
>
> well, this is a label meant to be used inside a validation message. so
> there :) i see nothing counter intuitive about
>
> add(new textfield("fname").setlabel(new model("first name")); and
> defining a default StringValidator.minimum=${label} must be at least
> ${minimum} characters for messages like "first name must be at least 5
> characters"
>
>>
>> If there were a means to add a IModel when adding any of the
>> validators (as described) it would follow the standard Wicket protocol
>
>> of using models. Any thoughts?
>
> setLabel() takes in a model... the fact is that the label is scoped to
> the formcomponent, not validation message most of the time. eg
>
> add(new textfield("fname").add(stringvalidator.minimum(5)).add(new
> uniqueusernamevalidator());
>
> so with your proposal i would have to give the same "first name" model
> to both validators, why? i can declare it once on the textfield, the
> label of the formcomponent wont change validator to validator.
>
> -igor
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 1:52 PM
>> To: users@wicket.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Providing IModel to Validators
>>
>> that is why formcomponents have a setLabel(IModel<String>) whose text
>> is then available via ${label} place holder.
>>
>> -igor
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Hoover, William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What does everyone think about updating the Wicket core validators to
>
>>> contain an optional IModel?
>>>
>>> Simple Use Case:
>>> # properties file
>>> label.myminimum=My Object at row: {0} with value '${input}' must be
>>> smaller than ${minimum}
>>>
>>> ...
>>> final RefreshingView myView = new RefreshingView("tr-my-object-view")
>> {
>>> protected final void populateItem(final Item item) {
>>> ...
>>> final TextField myTextField = new
>>> TextField("input-text-field");
>>> final IModel myMinValidatorModel = new
>>> StringResourceModel("label.myminimum", item, null, new Object[] {
>>> item.getIndex() });
>>>
>>> myTextField.add(NumberValidator.MinimumValidator.minimum(10L,
>>> myMinValidatorModel);
>>> ...
>>> }
>>> };
>>> ...
>>>
>>> So, instead of seeing a very general message that could apply to any
>>> number of fields that may contain the same value:
>>> ...
>>> '0' is smaller than the minimum of 10.
>>> '0' is smaller than the minimum of 10.
>>> '0' is smaller than the minimum of 10.
>>> ...
>>>
>>> You would see this:
>>> ...
>>> My Object at row: 1 with value '0' must be smaller than 10 My Object
>>> at row: 12 with value '0' must be smaller than 10 My Object at row:
>>> 20
>>
>>> with value '0' must be smaller than 10 ...
>>>
>>> The problem with just overriding the "NumberValidator.minimum"
>>> resource in this example is that makes it difficult to add custom
>>> property values (i.e. the index in example).
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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]
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
