A "column" attribute, or any other attribute for that matter, would not
make a difference because if would all be encapsulated within the model
set on the validator (use case 6 below). Providing models to the
validators would make it a lot easier to override validation messages
because all the developer would have to do is set the model on it (vs
looking up the resource key and add it to the components properties
file). I can see that this is receiving some strong resistance so I wont
push the issue any further :o)
==============================
Use Case 6:
StringResourceModel srm = new
StringResourceModel("CustomStringValidator.minimum", null, null, new
Object[]{ rowIndex, columnIndex });
add(new textfield("fname").setlabel(new model("first
name")).add(stringvalidator.minimum(5, srm));
results in- 'first name' with value 'abc' at row 10, column 3 is shorter
than the minimum of 5 characters.
==============================
-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:07 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Providing IModel to Validators
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
