You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Richard Hightower <rh...@arc-mind.com> on 2004/01/16 23:42:32 UTC
OT RE: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
Grief imparts the most knowledge. What would joy mean if we did not have
agony?!
I've learned a few things from you grief.
You contributed a patch, and found another bug with the mask rule.
Your grief has benefitted the group.
Thanks for sharing your grief.
Rick Hightower
Developer
Struts/J2EE training -- http://www.arc-mind.com/strutsCourse.htm
Struts/J2EE consulting --
http://www.arc-mind.com/consulting.htm#StrutsMentoring
-----Original Message-----
From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pemberton@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 11:23 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
Caused me some grief....plus a complete lack knowledge of RegExp until
yesterday. Anyway, thanks to everyone for the help and input - I know more
today than I did yesterday.
I've put a enhancement request into Bugzilla with patch on Commons to change
this - fingers crossed it will be approved.
Niall
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hightower" <rh...@arc-mind.com>
To: "Struts Developers List" <st...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 6:00 PM
Subject: RE: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
> Niall,
>
> Good catch!
>
> I was wondering why I had to always specify ^ and $.
>
> I wrote a few of my own validator rules (e.g., zip code and phone number),
> and I used regex from java.
> I used the match function. This explains some mysteries in my head.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pemberton@blueyonder.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 8:30 AM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
>
>
> I already tried it, and it is backward compatible. The thing about
Perl5Util
> is it provides a convinience method
> of match(value, pattern) which creates a Perl5Compiler, builds a cache of
> compiled patterns and calls the Perl5Matcher.contains()
> method. There isn't an equivalent convinience method that calls the
> Perl5Matcher.matches() method.
>
> Replacing:
> boolean match = Perl5Util.match(value, pattern)
>
> requires:
>
> Perl5Compiler compiler = new Perl5Compiler();
> Pattern compiledPattern = compiler.compile(pattern);
> Perl5Matcher matcher = new Perl5Matcher();
> boolean match = matcher.matches(value, compiledPattern);
>
> But then, it would be less efficient as the pattern is being compiled
every
> time. It would be
> straight forward to do the equivalent of Perl5Util and create a cache.
>
> I might have a look at this later and submit a patch to Commons.
>
> Niall
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > "David Graham" <gr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > --- Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Hey thanks for your help - what you suggested worked (i.e. using
> > > "^[\d,]*$") - I was using the ORO demo, but if you don't put the right
> > > stuff
> > > in....:-)
> > >
> > > OK, I'm picking up regex slowly - so this works because ^ is for the
> > > beginning of a line and % is for the end of a line.
> >
> > I think you meant $ instead of % but yes that's correct.
> >
> > >
> > > Apologies for the "doesn't work" slander then - but wouldn't it be
> > > better to
> > > use Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) and then there would be no
need
> > > to
> > > specify the ^ and $ characters at the start and end - simpler and less
> > > confusing?
> > >
> > > This could be done and would be backward compatible.
> >
> > I really haven't looked at the differences between matches() and
> > contains() so I don't know if it's backwards compatible. You could try
> > changing it and let us know what happens.
> >
> > David
> >
> > >
> > > Niall
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "David Graham" <gr...@yahoo.com>
> > > To: "Struts Developers List" <st...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:39 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Graham
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I decided to look further into your suggestion, but didn't get
> > > very
> > > > > far
> > > > > and I think its because mask doesn't work.
> > > >
> > > > I know it works because I use it in my apps :-).
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I started with a simple expression of [\d,]* to validate that the
> > > input
> > > > > only contains numbers or a comma. Whatever I input though
validator
> > > > > always
> > > > > passed it as valid.
> > > >
> > > > ORO's test applet is really helpful when testing regexs. Try
putting
> > > ^ at
> > > > the front and $ at the end of the pattern. ORO seems to need these
to
> > > > work properly unlike Java 1.4 regexs.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking into validator it uses Perl5Util.match(pattern, value)
> > > > >
> > > > > This utility uses the Perl5Matcher.contains(value, pattern) method
> > > which
> > > > > only checks that the value contains the pattern - not that matches
> > > (it
> > > > > says
> > > > > so in the Perl5Util documentation).
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't this the wrong thing to do - shouldn't validator be using
the
> > > > > Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) method. I had a look at
commons
> > > > > validator test thinking this must be tested for and I must be
> > > > > mis-understanding it - but mask seems to be the one thing there
are
> > > no
> > > > > tests
> > > > > for - and there don't seem to be any in struts either for
> > > > > FieldChecks.validateMask())
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, am I right - is this a bug, or am I just using it wrongly?
> > > > >
> > > > > Niall
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S. If I am right, then it implies no one is using mask and I
think
> > > > > thats
> > > > > an argument for my simpler number validation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "David Graham" <gr...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > To: "Struts Developers List" <st...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to
> > > support
> > > > > all
> > > > > > variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that
> > > duplicate
> > > > > what
> > > > > > can already be done with mask.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no
> > > knowledge
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and I
> > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > it to (including your suggestion).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I don't
> > > know
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so
much
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as
people
> > > are
> > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to
screen,
> > > it
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for
> > > > > validation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to
> > > > > validate
> > > > > > > numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement
request:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Niall
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Robert Leland wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably not
> > > > > correct)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <field property="amount" depends="required,mask">
> > > > > > > > <arg0 key="sale.amount" />
> > > > > > > > <var>
> > > > > > > > <var-name>mask</var-name>
> > > > > > > > <var-value>\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)</var-value>
> > > > > > > > </var>
> > > > > > > > </field>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have posted
a
> > > > > patch
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number
> > > validations to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This patch allows an optional "numberPattern" variable to be
> > > > > specified
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double
> > > > > validations.
> > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > Example:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <field property="amount" depends="required,integer">
> > > > > > > <arg0 key="sale.amount" />
> > > > > > > <var>
> > > > > > > <var-name>numberPattern</var-name>
> > > > > > > <var-value>#,##0:(#,##0)</var-value>
> > > > > > > </var>
> > > > > > > </field>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is
> > > used to
> > > > > > > parse
> > > > > > > the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have also posted a patch to add a new section the Validator
> > > User
> > > > > Guide
> > > > > > > which describes all the standard suppiled validations and
shows
> > > > > examples
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > usage, including using the new "numberPattern" variable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any feedback.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Niall
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: OT RE: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
Heres to lots more grief in the future hey lol!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hightower" <rh...@arc-mind.com>
To: "Struts Developers List" <st...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 10:42 PM
Subject: OT RE: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
> Grief imparts the most knowledge. What would joy mean if we did not have
> agony?!
>
> I've learned a few things from you grief.
> You contributed a patch, and found another bug with the mask rule.
>
> Your grief has benefitted the group.
>
> Thanks for sharing your grief.
>
>
> Rick Hightower
> Developer
>
> Struts/J2EE training -- http://www.arc-mind.com/strutsCourse.htm
> Struts/J2EE consulting --
> http://www.arc-mind.com/consulting.htm#StrutsMentoring
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pemberton@blueyonder.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 11:23 AM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
>
>
> Caused me some grief....plus a complete lack knowledge of RegExp until
> yesterday. Anyway, thanks to everyone for the help and input - I know more
> today than I did yesterday.
>
> I've put a enhancement request into Bugzilla with patch on Commons to
change
> this - fingers crossed it will be approved.
>
> Niall
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Hightower" <rh...@arc-mind.com>
> To: "Struts Developers List" <st...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 6:00 PM
> Subject: RE: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
>
>
> > Niall,
> >
> > Good catch!
> >
> > I was wondering why I had to always specify ^ and $.
> >
> > I wrote a few of my own validator rules (e.g., zip code and phone
number),
> > and I used regex from java.
> > I used the match function. This explains some mysteries in my head.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pemberton@blueyonder.co.uk]
> > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 8:30 AM
> > To: Struts Developers List
> > Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
> >
> >
> > I already tried it, and it is backward compatible. The thing about
> Perl5Util
> > is it provides a convinience method
> > of match(value, pattern) which creates a Perl5Compiler, builds a cache
of
> > compiled patterns and calls the Perl5Matcher.contains()
> > method. There isn't an equivalent convinience method that calls the
> > Perl5Matcher.matches() method.
> >
> > Replacing:
> > boolean match = Perl5Util.match(value, pattern)
> >
> > requires:
> >
> > Perl5Compiler compiler = new Perl5Compiler();
> > Pattern compiledPattern = compiler.compile(pattern);
> > Perl5Matcher matcher = new Perl5Matcher();
> > boolean match = matcher.matches(value, compiledPattern);
> >
> > But then, it would be less efficient as the pattern is being compiled
> every
> > time. It would be
> > straight forward to do the equivalent of Perl5Util and create a cache.
> >
> > I might have a look at this later and submit a patch to Commons.
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > "David Graham" <gr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Hey thanks for your help - what you suggested worked (i.e. using
> > > > "^[\d,]*$") - I was using the ORO demo, but if you don't put the
right
> > > > stuff
> > > > in....:-)
> > > >
> > > > OK, I'm picking up regex slowly - so this works because ^ is for the
> > > > beginning of a line and % is for the end of a line.
> > >
> > > I think you meant $ instead of % but yes that's correct.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Apologies for the "doesn't work" slander then - but wouldn't it be
> > > > better to
> > > > use Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) and then there would be no
> need
> > > > to
> > > > specify the ^ and $ characters at the start and end - simpler and
less
> > > > confusing?
> > > >
> > > > This could be done and would be backward compatible.
> > >
> > > I really haven't looked at the differences between matches() and
> > > contains() so I don't know if it's backwards compatible. You could
try
> > > changing it and let us know what happens.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Niall
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "David Graham" <gr...@yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "Struts Developers List" <st...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:39 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > Graham
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, I decided to look further into your suggestion, but didn't
get
> > > > very
> > > > > > far
> > > > > > and I think its because mask doesn't work.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know it works because I use it in my apps :-).
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I started with a simple expression of [\d,]* to validate that
the
> > > > input
> > > > > > only contains numbers or a comma. Whatever I input though
> validator
> > > > > > always
> > > > > > passed it as valid.
> > > > >
> > > > > ORO's test applet is really helpful when testing regexs. Try
> putting
> > > > ^ at
> > > > > the front and $ at the end of the pattern. ORO seems to need
these
> to
> > > > > work properly unlike Java 1.4 regexs.
> > > > >
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking into validator it uses Perl5Util.match(pattern, value)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This utility uses the Perl5Matcher.contains(value, pattern)
method
> > > > which
> > > > > > only checks that the value contains the pattern - not that
matches
> > > > (it
> > > > > > says
> > > > > > so in the Perl5Util documentation).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Isn't this the wrong thing to do - shouldn't validator be using
> the
> > > > > > Perl5Matcher.matches(value, pattern) method. I had a look at
> commons
> > > > > > validator test thinking this must be tested for and I must be
> > > > > > mis-understanding it - but mask seems to be the one thing there
> are
> > > > no
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > for - and there don't seem to be any in struts either for
> > > > > > FieldChecks.validateMask())
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, am I right - is this a bug, or am I just using it
wrongly?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Niall
> > > > > >
> > > > > > P.S. If I am right, then it implies no one is using mask and I
> think
> > > > > > thats
> > > > > > an argument for my simpler number validation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "David Graham" <gr...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "Struts Developers List" <st...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:19 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Validating Formatted Numbers Patch [Bugzilla 26151]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The point of having the mask validation is so we don't have to
> > > > support
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > variations of patterns. I'm -1 on adding validators that
> > > > duplicate
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > can already be done with mask.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Robert,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I tried to get mask to work (although until today I had no
> > > > knowledge
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > regular expressions) using the ORA demonstration applet and
I
> > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > it to (including your suggestion).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not saying regular expressions couldn't work (only I
don't
> > > > know
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > make them!), but the pattern's used in DecimalFormat are so
> much
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > straight forward and designed for the task. Typically as
> people
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > using a pattern with DecimalFormat to output the data to
> screen,
> > > > it
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > much easier and intuitive to specify the same pattern for
> > > > > > validation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I say horses for courses and to me using a number pattern to
> > > > > > validate
> > > > > > > > numbers is a better way to do it - hence the enhacement
> request:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26151
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Niall
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Robert Leland wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So using mask won't work ? (my syntax below is probably
not
> > > > > > correct)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <field property="amount" depends="required,mask">
> > > > > > > > > <arg0 key="sale.amount" />
> > > > > > > > > <var>
> > > > > > > > > <var-name>mask</var-name>
> > > > > > > > > <var-value>\d,\d\d0\:\(\d,\d\d0\)</var-value>
> > > > > > > > > </var>
> > > > > > > > > </field>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I need to validate numbers which are formatted and have
posted
> a
> > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > bugzilla which enhances validator the existing number
> > > > validations to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This patch allows an optional "numberPattern" variable to be
> > > > > > specified
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the existing byte, short, integer, long, float and double
> > > > > > validations.
> > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > Example:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <field property="amount" depends="required,integer">
> > > > > > > > <arg0 key="sale.amount" />
> > > > > > > > <var>
> > > > > > > > <var-name>numberPattern</var-name>
> > > > > > > > <var-value>#,##0:(#,##0)</var-value>
> > > > > > > > </var>
> > > > > > > > </field>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If the pattern is specified, then java.text.DecimalFormat is
> > > > used to
> > > > > > > > parse
> > > > > > > > the number and check if it is valid (catering for Locale).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have also posted a patch to add a new section the
Validator
> > > > User
> > > > > > Guide
> > > > > > > > which describes all the standard suppiled validations and
> shows
> > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > usage, including using the new "numberPattern" variable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any feedback.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Niall
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > === message truncated ===
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> > > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org