You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> on 2006/03/13 02:38:44 UTC
removal of most of the validators in org.apache.tapestry.valid?
In the process of cleaning up a couple core interfaces
(IEngine/IRequestCycle/IPage/etc...) it is now not possible to get the
IScriptSource from the engine (as it is injectable).
This has made most of the validators in org.apache.tapestry.valid more or
less not working...
I'm wondering if it's worth the effort to refactor everything to work with
these or if org.apache.tapestry.form.validator is not meant to replace them?
I think this causes a vast amount of confusion for a lot of people and I'd
personally like to axe one or the other. Along with ValidField and any other
components that aren't relevant anymore.
?
jesse
Re: removal of most of the validators in org.apache.tapestry.valid?
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
Ok will do. I've temporarily refactored enough to make the old validators
work again, but have my sights set on destroying them as soon as makes
sense. Still a lot of other things that need to be put in place before I'm
ready to attack the form logic.
On 3/13/06, Paul Ferraro <pm...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> We should first make sure that each valid.IValidator has a functionally
> equivalent form.validator.Validator.
> e.g. I don't think the URLValidator was ever ported...
>
> Paul
>
> Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> > In the process of cleaning up a couple core interfaces
> > (IEngine/IRequestCycle/IPage/etc...) it is now not possible to get the
> > IScriptSource from the engine (as it is injectable).
> >
> > This has made most of the validators in org.apache.tapestry.valid more
> or
> > less not working...
> >
> > I'm wondering if it's worth the effort to refactor everything to work
> with
> > these or if org.apache.tapestry.form.validator is not meant to replace
> them?
> >
> >
> > I think this causes a vast amount of confusion for a lot of people and
> I'd
> > personally like to axe one or the other. Along with ValidField and any
> other
> > components that aren't relevant anymore.
> >
> > ?
> > jesse
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: removal of most of the validators in org.apache.tapestry.valid?
Posted by Paul Ferraro <pm...@columbia.edu>.
+1
We should first make sure that each valid.IValidator has a functionally
equivalent form.validator.Validator.
e.g. I don't think the URLValidator was ever ported...
Paul
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> In the process of cleaning up a couple core interfaces
> (IEngine/IRequestCycle/IPage/etc...) it is now not possible to get the
> IScriptSource from the engine (as it is injectable).
>
> This has made most of the validators in org.apache.tapestry.valid more or
> less not working...
>
> I'm wondering if it's worth the effort to refactor everything to work with
> these or if org.apache.tapestry.form.validator is not meant to replace them?
>
>
> I think this causes a vast amount of confusion for a lot of people and I'd
> personally like to axe one or the other. Along with ValidField and any other
> components that aren't relevant anymore.
>
> ?
> jesse
>
>
Re: removal of most of the validators in org.apache.tapestry.valid?
Posted by Massimo Lusetti <ml...@gmail.com>.
On 3/13/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the process of cleaning up a couple core interfaces
> (IEngine/IRequestCycle/IPage/etc...) it is now not possible to get the
> IScriptSource from the engine (as it is injectable).
>
> This has made most of the validators in org.apache.tapestry.valid more or
> less not working...
>
> I'm wondering if it's worth the effort to refactor everything to work with
> these or if org.apache.tapestry.form.validator is not meant to replace them?
Yes, please do that!
> I think this causes a vast amount of confusion for a lot of people and I'd
> personally like to axe one or the other. Along with ValidField and any other
> components that aren't relevant anymore.
There're a couple of thing in .form.validator which points to .valid,
it comes to mind the properties for the Messages... maybe that should
need a refactor too.
--
Massimo
http://meridio.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: removal of most of the validators in org.apache.tapestry.valid?
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
Great!
I've barely gotten most of the unit tests working again. (all besides the
TemplateParser tests, but I think the matching line numbers are a
cross-platform issue)
I will attack this soon, still adding in the JSON render into the response
cycle right now. (possibly thinking about adding in your EventListener
annotation as well )
On 3/15/06, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The ValidField component should go, and its the only thing that uses
> these validators.
>
> Paul's new validation framework is in the tapestry.form.validiators
> and tapestry.form.translators packages (from memory).
>
> There's also a validator: binding prefix that should go.
>
> On 3/12/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the process of cleaning up a couple core interfaces
> > (IEngine/IRequestCycle/IPage/etc...) it is now not possible to get the
> > IScriptSource from the engine (as it is injectable).
> >
> > This has made most of the validators in org.apache.tapestry.valid more
> or
> > less not working...
> >
> > I'm wondering if it's worth the effort to refactor everything to work
> with
> > these or if org.apache.tapestry.form.validator is not meant to replace
> them?
> >
> >
> > I think this causes a vast amount of confusion for a lot of people and
> I'd
> > personally like to axe one or the other. Along with ValidField and any
> other
> > components that aren't relevant anymore.
> >
> > ?
> > jesse
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: removal of most of the validators in org.apache.tapestry.valid?
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
The ValidField component should go, and its the only thing that uses
these validators.
Paul's new validation framework is in the tapestry.form.validiators
and tapestry.form.translators packages (from memory).
There's also a validator: binding prefix that should go.
On 3/12/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the process of cleaning up a couple core interfaces
> (IEngine/IRequestCycle/IPage/etc...) it is now not possible to get the
> IScriptSource from the engine (as it is injectable).
>
> This has made most of the validators in org.apache.tapestry.valid more or
> less not working...
>
> I'm wondering if it's worth the effort to refactor everything to work with
> these or if org.apache.tapestry.form.validator is not meant to replace them?
>
>
> I think this causes a vast amount of confusion for a lot of people and I'd
> personally like to axe one or the other. Along with ValidField and any other
> components that aren't relevant anymore.
>
> ?
> jesse
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org