You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> on 2004/11/11 18:12:20 UTC
[Validator] Next Release
I decided to have a go a resolving a couple of Struts bugs to do with
bundles/resources and validator:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18169
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21760
Currently theres an inconsitency in how Struts handles bundles since
although the validator dtd allows users to specify alternative bundles -
Struts completely ignores them. Seems to me this is a big weakness in how
handles Strut's bundles if validator can't take acount of them.
Specifically Struts ignores the following validator DTD attributes:
* the msg elements 'bundle' attribute
* the msg elements 'resource' attribute
* the arg elements 'bundle' attribute
Fixing Struts required a couple of small changes to Commons Validator, which
I've just done - it was already subject to the following outstanding
bugzilla request:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29452
In order to now fix Struts there needs to be a release of Commons Validator
with this change in and I'm wondering about the following:
1) Version 1.1.4 or Version 1.2.0
========================
I wan't sure what the difference between the whats in the HEAD (Version
1.2.0) and the VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH (Version 1.1.3) - but from a quick
scan a summary of the differences is:
* Form Inheritance functionality (new extends attribute)
* Loads of deprecations removed (including arg0 to arg3)
* A number of minor bug fixes
I guess it would be good to have only one branch and release Version 1.2.0
but I'm wondering whether the Form Inheritance is fully tested and working
and also, given all the deprecations removed, whether it might be better
(upgrade wise for the users) to release Version 1.1.4 from the
VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH.
2) Arg's Position Parameter - Bug 31194
==============================
While doing this stuff on validator I came across the following enhancement
request:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31194
It looked like a good idea and I've attached a patch for review which
implements this request. Personally, if the decision is to go with a Version
1.2.0 release - I wouldn't want to upgrade to 1.2.0 without this enhancement
being applied - when replacing arg0 - arg3 I could get away with not having
to add a position attribute if this enhacement was done.
The easiest route - Struts wise is to go the Version 1.1.4 route. It would
mean zero impact on the users, except having to drop the new jar in.
Validator wise, we should probably get the Version 1.2.0 out of the door and
just support one version.
I'd rather go the 1.1.4 route but I'd appreciate hearing what others think.
Niall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Validator] Next Release
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
Yes, sorry I meant to write 1.1.3.1 - but anyway I take your point 1.1.4 it
is then.
Niall
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Graham" <gr...@yahoo.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Validator] Next Release
>
> --- Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Would it be better to call the version 1.3.1.1?
> >
> > I'm just thinking that its going to confuse people using the 1.3.1
> > version
> > DTD with a 1.4.1 version?
>
> I think you've got your versions mixed up :-). IMO, the release should be
> called 1.1.4 because that comes after 1.1.3. This is a bugfix release so
> it shouldn't be surprising that the dtd is the same as the last version.
>
> David
>
>
> >
> > Niall
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Graham" <gr...@yahoo.com>
> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 8:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Validator] Next Release
> >
> > > I think releasing a 1.1.4 is a good idea. This will give users yet
> > > another opportunity to notice the arg0-4 deprecation and change their
> > xml
> > > accordingly. That will make for a smooth upgrade to 1.2.0 when it's
> > > finally released.
> > >
> > > If you cut a release, please update the changes.xml file because we're
> > > using that as our release notes. I usually update this file at the
> > same
> > > time as making a code change or fixing a bug.
> > >
> > > Thanks so much for volunteering on validator Niall!
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Validator] Next Release
Posted by David Graham <gr...@yahoo.com>.
--- Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Would it be better to call the version 1.3.1.1?
>
> I'm just thinking that its going to confuse people using the 1.3.1
> version
> DTD with a 1.4.1 version?
I think you've got your versions mixed up :-). IMO, the release should be
called 1.1.4 because that comes after 1.1.3. This is a bugfix release so
it shouldn't be surprising that the dtd is the same as the last version.
David
>
> Niall
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Graham" <gr...@yahoo.com>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 8:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Validator] Next Release
>
> > I think releasing a 1.1.4 is a good idea. This will give users yet
> > another opportunity to notice the arg0-4 deprecation and change their
> xml
> > accordingly. That will make for a smooth upgrade to 1.2.0 when it's
> > finally released.
> >
> > If you cut a release, please update the changes.xml file because we're
> > using that as our release notes. I usually update this file at the
> same
> > time as making a code change or fixing a bug.
> >
> > Thanks so much for volunteering on validator Niall!
> >
> > David
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Validator] Next Release
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
Would it be better to call the version 1.3.1.1?
I'm just thinking that its going to confuse people using the 1.3.1 version
DTD with a 1.4.1 version?
Niall
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Graham" <gr...@yahoo.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Validator] Next Release
> I think releasing a 1.1.4 is a good idea. This will give users yet
> another opportunity to notice the arg0-4 deprecation and change their xml
> accordingly. That will make for a smooth upgrade to 1.2.0 when it's
> finally released.
>
> If you cut a release, please update the changes.xml file because we're
> using that as our release notes. I usually update this file at the same
> time as making a code change or fixing a bug.
>
> Thanks so much for volunteering on validator Niall!
>
> David
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Validator] Next Release
Posted by "Nacho G. Mac Dowell" <ig...@informa.es>.
>
>
>Can I cut a release using the "ant release" task or do I have to use maven -
>I know next to nothing about maven :-(
>
If you use eclipse there is a good plugin for maven at
http://mevenide.codehaus.org/
They have versions for jbuilder and netbeans as well although I haven't
tested them.
PD: Maven rocks!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Validator] Next Release
Posted by David Graham <gr...@yahoo.com>.
--- Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> David, thanks for the rsponse.
>
> I'm going to commit the automatic positioning work I've done today (to
> the
> HEAD, not the VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH).
>
> Thanks for the pointer to changes.xml - I'll update that today with the
> changes I've made.
>
> Can I cut a release using the "ant release" task or do I have to use
> maven -
> I know next to nothing about maven :-(
I don't use or maintain the ant build file. Running 'maven clean dist'
will give you the source and binary files needed for the release. Running
'maven clean site' will generate the website.
David
>
> Niall
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Graham" <gr...@yahoo.com>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 8:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Validator] Next Release
>
>
> >
> > --- Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > I decided to have a go a resolving a couple of Struts bugs to do
> with
> > > bundles/resources and validator:
> > >
> > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18169
> > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21760
> > >
> > > Currently theres an inconsitency in how Struts handles bundles since
> > > although the validator dtd allows users to specify alternative
> bundles -
> > > Struts completely ignores them. Seems to me this is a big weakness
> in
> > > how
> > > handles Strut's bundles if validator can't take acount of them.
> > >
> > > Specifically Struts ignores the following validator DTD attributes:
> > > * the msg elements 'bundle' attribute
> > > * the msg elements 'resource' attribute
> > > * the arg elements 'bundle' attribute
> > >
> > > Fixing Struts required a couple of small changes to Commons
> Validator,
> > > which
> > > I've just done - it was already subject to the following outstanding
> > > bugzilla request:
> > >
> > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29452
> > >
> > > In order to now fix Struts there needs to be a release of Commons
> > > Validator
> > > with this change in and I'm wondering about the following:
> > >
> > > 1) Version 1.1.4 or Version 1.2.0
> > > ========================
> > > I wan't sure what the difference between the whats in the HEAD
> (Version
> > > 1.2.0) and the VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH (Version 1.1.3) - but from a
> quick
> > > scan a summary of the differences is:
> > >
> > > * Form Inheritance functionality (new extends attribute)
> > > * Loads of deprecations removed (including arg0 to arg3)
> > > * A number of minor bug fixes
> >
> > Those are the only differences I can remember.
> >
> > >
> > > I guess it would be good to have only one branch and release Version
> > > 1.2.0
> > > but I'm wondering whether the Form Inheritance is fully tested and
> > > working
> > > and also, given all the deprecations removed, whether it might be
> better
> > > (upgrade wise for the users) to release Version 1.1.4 from the
> > > VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH.
> >
> > I doubt form inheritance has been tested completely since it hasn't
> been
> > included in a release yet.
> >
> > The branch name should have been VALIDATOR_1_1_BRANCH so that it could
> > logically support multiple 1.1.x releases. However, it's not named
> that
> > so I guess we'll just have to release 1.1.4 from that branch and deal
> with
> > the minor confusion. I'd like to limit the number of releases in the
> 1.1
> > series and move on to 1.2 so we can get rid of the gross arg0-4 stuff
> for
> > good.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) Arg's Position Parameter - Bug 31194
> > > ==============================
> > > While doing this stuff on validator I came across the following
> > > enhancement
> > > request:
> > >
> > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31194
> > >
> > > It looked like a good idea and I've attached a patch for review
> which
> > > implements this request. Personally, if the decision is to go with a
> > > Version
> > > 1.2.0 release - I wouldn't want to upgrade to 1.2.0 without this
> > > enhancement
> > > being applied - when replacing arg0 - arg3 I could get away with not
> > > having
> > > to add a position attribute if this enhacement was done.
> >
> > I agree that automatic positioning should be included in 1.2.0.
> >
> > >
> > > The easiest route - Struts wise is to go the Version 1.1.4 route. It
> > > would
> > > mean zero impact on the users, except having to drop the new jar in.
> > > Validator wise, we should probably get the Version 1.2.0 out of the
> door
> > > and
> > > just support one version.
> > >
> > > I'd rather go the 1.1.4 route but I'd appreciate hearing what others
> > > think.
> >
> > I think releasing a 1.1.4 is a good idea. This will give users yet
> > another opportunity to notice the arg0-4 deprecation and change their
> xml
> > accordingly. That will make for a smooth upgrade to 1.2.0 when it's
> > finally released.
> >
> > If you cut a release, please update the changes.xml file because we're
> > using that as our release notes. I usually update this file at the
> same
> > time as making a code change or fixing a bug.
> >
> > Thanks so much for volunteering on validator Niall!
> >
> > David
> >
> > >
> > > Niall
> > >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Validator] Next Release
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
David, thanks for the rsponse.
I'm going to commit the automatic positioning work I've done today (to the
HEAD, not the VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH).
Thanks for the pointer to changes.xml - I'll update that today with the
changes I've made.
Can I cut a release using the "ant release" task or do I have to use maven -
I know next to nothing about maven :-(
Niall
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Graham" <gr...@yahoo.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Validator] Next Release
>
> --- Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I decided to have a go a resolving a couple of Struts bugs to do with
> > bundles/resources and validator:
> >
> > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18169
> > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21760
> >
> > Currently theres an inconsitency in how Struts handles bundles since
> > although the validator dtd allows users to specify alternative bundles -
> > Struts completely ignores them. Seems to me this is a big weakness in
> > how
> > handles Strut's bundles if validator can't take acount of them.
> >
> > Specifically Struts ignores the following validator DTD attributes:
> > * the msg elements 'bundle' attribute
> > * the msg elements 'resource' attribute
> > * the arg elements 'bundle' attribute
> >
> > Fixing Struts required a couple of small changes to Commons Validator,
> > which
> > I've just done - it was already subject to the following outstanding
> > bugzilla request:
> >
> > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29452
> >
> > In order to now fix Struts there needs to be a release of Commons
> > Validator
> > with this change in and I'm wondering about the following:
> >
> > 1) Version 1.1.4 or Version 1.2.0
> > ========================
> > I wan't sure what the difference between the whats in the HEAD (Version
> > 1.2.0) and the VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH (Version 1.1.3) - but from a quick
> > scan a summary of the differences is:
> >
> > * Form Inheritance functionality (new extends attribute)
> > * Loads of deprecations removed (including arg0 to arg3)
> > * A number of minor bug fixes
>
> Those are the only differences I can remember.
>
> >
> > I guess it would be good to have only one branch and release Version
> > 1.2.0
> > but I'm wondering whether the Form Inheritance is fully tested and
> > working
> > and also, given all the deprecations removed, whether it might be better
> > (upgrade wise for the users) to release Version 1.1.4 from the
> > VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH.
>
> I doubt form inheritance has been tested completely since it hasn't been
> included in a release yet.
>
> The branch name should have been VALIDATOR_1_1_BRANCH so that it could
> logically support multiple 1.1.x releases. However, it's not named that
> so I guess we'll just have to release 1.1.4 from that branch and deal with
> the minor confusion. I'd like to limit the number of releases in the 1.1
> series and move on to 1.2 so we can get rid of the gross arg0-4 stuff for
> good.
>
> >
> >
> > 2) Arg's Position Parameter - Bug 31194
> > ==============================
> > While doing this stuff on validator I came across the following
> > enhancement
> > request:
> >
> > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31194
> >
> > It looked like a good idea and I've attached a patch for review which
> > implements this request. Personally, if the decision is to go with a
> > Version
> > 1.2.0 release - I wouldn't want to upgrade to 1.2.0 without this
> > enhancement
> > being applied - when replacing arg0 - arg3 I could get away with not
> > having
> > to add a position attribute if this enhacement was done.
>
> I agree that automatic positioning should be included in 1.2.0.
>
> >
> > The easiest route - Struts wise is to go the Version 1.1.4 route. It
> > would
> > mean zero impact on the users, except having to drop the new jar in.
> > Validator wise, we should probably get the Version 1.2.0 out of the door
> > and
> > just support one version.
> >
> > I'd rather go the 1.1.4 route but I'd appreciate hearing what others
> > think.
>
> I think releasing a 1.1.4 is a good idea. This will give users yet
> another opportunity to notice the arg0-4 deprecation and change their xml
> accordingly. That will make for a smooth upgrade to 1.2.0 when it's
> finally released.
>
> If you cut a release, please update the changes.xml file because we're
> using that as our release notes. I usually update this file at the same
> time as making a code change or fixing a bug.
>
> Thanks so much for volunteering on validator Niall!
>
> David
>
> >
> > Niall
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Validator] Next Release
Posted by "Nacho G. Mac Dowell" <ig...@informa.es>.
It sounds good to me. If anything needs to be done for 1.1.4 I can help.
>Nacho,
>
>I had a quick look at #30955 and your patch and agree it looks like in needs
>fixing. At this point my itch is to just get a 1.1.4 version out which just
>includes bug #29452 so that I can then fix Struts. The fix for bug #29452
>is v. simple and so the risk is low - bug # 30955 is more involved though
>and so IMO we should do that in the HEAD for the 1.2.0 version.
>
>I will try to find some time for it (unless someone beats me to it), but at
>this point I can't say when.
>
>Niall
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Nacho G. Mac Dowell" <ig...@informa.es>
>To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
>Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:31 AM
>Subject: Re: [Validator] Next Release
>
>
>
>
>>I would like to address the importance of bug #30955
>>(http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30955). Currently,
>>form definition processing isn't working properly. I was thinking of
>>changing severity to major to raise attention. Please do take a look and
>>tell me what you think.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I doubt form inheritance has been tested completely since it hasn't been
>>>included in a release yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I have extensively used form inheritance (I sent the patch). If you take
>>a close look at the changes involved you'd notice that special care was
>>taken to minimize impact on the rest of the code. I beleive form
>>inheritance could take Validator one step forward. If #30955 gets solved
>>it would even get more useful.
>>
>>I know that it is out of the scope of this mailing list but I would like
>>to say that using validator with struts is sort of painful when using
>>DynaValidatorForm. You have at least 4 hard coded parameter definitions
>>(struts-config.xml, validation.xml, the view and the action). I have
>>seen that the preferred direction for validator is not form validation
>>but bean validation. It would be nice though if we could have a single
>>form definition with its simple commons-validator validations. What do
>>you think? Should I post this in the struts mailing list?
>>
>>Nacho G. Mac Dowell
>>
>>PD: I am using a different email address since it's the only one I can
>>use from work.
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Validator] Next Release
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
Nacho,
I had a quick look at #30955 and your patch and agree it looks like in needs
fixing. At this point my itch is to just get a 1.1.4 version out which just
includes bug #29452 so that I can then fix Struts. The fix for bug #29452
is v. simple and so the risk is low - bug # 30955 is more involved though
and so IMO we should do that in the HEAD for the 1.2.0 version.
I will try to find some time for it (unless someone beats me to it), but at
this point I can't say when.
Niall
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nacho G. Mac Dowell" <ig...@informa.es>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Validator] Next Release
> I would like to address the importance of bug #30955
> (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30955). Currently,
> form definition processing isn't working properly. I was thinking of
> changing severity to major to raise attention. Please do take a look and
> tell me what you think.
>
> >I doubt form inheritance has been tested completely since it hasn't been
> >included in a release yet.
> >
> I have extensively used form inheritance (I sent the patch). If you take
> a close look at the changes involved you'd notice that special care was
> taken to minimize impact on the rest of the code. I beleive form
> inheritance could take Validator one step forward. If #30955 gets solved
> it would even get more useful.
>
> I know that it is out of the scope of this mailing list but I would like
> to say that using validator with struts is sort of painful when using
> DynaValidatorForm. You have at least 4 hard coded parameter definitions
> (struts-config.xml, validation.xml, the view and the action). I have
> seen that the preferred direction for validator is not form validation
> but bean validation. It would be nice though if we could have a single
> form definition with its simple commons-validator validations. What do
> you think? Should I post this in the struts mailing list?
>
> Nacho G. Mac Dowell
>
> PD: I am using a different email address since it's the only one I can
> use from work.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Validator] Next Release
Posted by "Nacho G. Mac Dowell" <ig...@informa.es>.
I would like to address the importance of bug #30955
(http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30955). Currently,
form definition processing isn't working properly. I was thinking of
changing severity to major to raise attention. Please do take a look and
tell me what you think.
>I doubt form inheritance has been tested completely since it hasn't been
>included in a release yet.
>
I have extensively used form inheritance (I sent the patch). If you take
a close look at the changes involved you'd notice that special care was
taken to minimize impact on the rest of the code. I beleive form
inheritance could take Validator one step forward. If #30955 gets solved
it would even get more useful.
I know that it is out of the scope of this mailing list but I would like
to say that using validator with struts is sort of painful when using
DynaValidatorForm. You have at least 4 hard coded parameter definitions
(struts-config.xml, validation.xml, the view and the action). I have
seen that the preferred direction for validator is not form validation
but bean validation. It would be nice though if we could have a single
form definition with its simple commons-validator validations. What do
you think? Should I post this in the struts mailing list?
Nacho G. Mac Dowell
PD: I am using a different email address since it's the only one I can
use from work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [Validator] Next Release
Posted by David Graham <gr...@yahoo.com>.
--- Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I decided to have a go a resolving a couple of Struts bugs to do with
> bundles/resources and validator:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18169
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21760
>
> Currently theres an inconsitency in how Struts handles bundles since
> although the validator dtd allows users to specify alternative bundles -
> Struts completely ignores them. Seems to me this is a big weakness in
> how
> handles Strut's bundles if validator can't take acount of them.
>
> Specifically Struts ignores the following validator DTD attributes:
> * the msg elements 'bundle' attribute
> * the msg elements 'resource' attribute
> * the arg elements 'bundle' attribute
>
> Fixing Struts required a couple of small changes to Commons Validator,
> which
> I've just done - it was already subject to the following outstanding
> bugzilla request:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29452
>
> In order to now fix Struts there needs to be a release of Commons
> Validator
> with this change in and I'm wondering about the following:
>
> 1) Version 1.1.4 or Version 1.2.0
> ========================
> I wan't sure what the difference between the whats in the HEAD (Version
> 1.2.0) and the VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH (Version 1.1.3) - but from a quick
> scan a summary of the differences is:
>
> * Form Inheritance functionality (new extends attribute)
> * Loads of deprecations removed (including arg0 to arg3)
> * A number of minor bug fixes
Those are the only differences I can remember.
>
> I guess it would be good to have only one branch and release Version
> 1.2.0
> but I'm wondering whether the Form Inheritance is fully tested and
> working
> and also, given all the deprecations removed, whether it might be better
> (upgrade wise for the users) to release Version 1.1.4 from the
> VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH.
I doubt form inheritance has been tested completely since it hasn't been
included in a release yet.
The branch name should have been VALIDATOR_1_1_BRANCH so that it could
logically support multiple 1.1.x releases. However, it's not named that
so I guess we'll just have to release 1.1.4 from that branch and deal with
the minor confusion. I'd like to limit the number of releases in the 1.1
series and move on to 1.2 so we can get rid of the gross arg0-4 stuff for
good.
>
>
> 2) Arg's Position Parameter - Bug 31194
> ==============================
> While doing this stuff on validator I came across the following
> enhancement
> request:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31194
>
> It looked like a good idea and I've attached a patch for review which
> implements this request. Personally, if the decision is to go with a
> Version
> 1.2.0 release - I wouldn't want to upgrade to 1.2.0 without this
> enhancement
> being applied - when replacing arg0 - arg3 I could get away with not
> having
> to add a position attribute if this enhacement was done.
I agree that automatic positioning should be included in 1.2.0.
>
> The easiest route - Struts wise is to go the Version 1.1.4 route. It
> would
> mean zero impact on the users, except having to drop the new jar in.
> Validator wise, we should probably get the Version 1.2.0 out of the door
> and
> just support one version.
>
> I'd rather go the 1.1.4 route but I'd appreciate hearing what others
> think.
I think releasing a 1.1.4 is a good idea. This will give users yet
another opportunity to notice the arg0-4 deprecation and change their xml
accordingly. That will make for a smooth upgrade to 1.2.0 when it's
finally released.
If you cut a release, please update the changes.xml file because we're
using that as our release notes. I usually update this file at the same
time as making a code change or fixing a bug.
Thanks so much for volunteering on validator Niall!
David
>
> Niall
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org