You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by James Turner <tu...@blackbear.com> on 2002/09/27 18:22:33 UTC
[VOTE] Validator 1.0 Release (Second Call)
And yea, my first call unto the masses for a vote on a Validator 1.0
release was met with a deafening silence. So second try: please vote!
+1: Finally having a release of Validator sounds good
-1: I have a good reason why now would not be a good time to do a release
James
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Validator 1.0 Release (Second Call)
Posted by "V. Cekvenich" <vi...@users.sourceforge.net>.
It might take me till next weekend.
V.
James Turner wrote:
> At 08:56 PM 9/29/2002, V. Cekvenich wrote:
>
>> As a non commiter I will only comment that I am very, very glad
>> someone is finaly working on Validator, but I think it still has open
>> issues including 8787. So far my client would used a patch up
>> validator which I heard others do.
>>
>> 8787 is needed since it used for multi row validation and other master
>> detail work.
>> It has sample code.
>
>
> I'm a bit confused here, what don't you think works with indexed field
> validations as current. I've got several forms in applications using
> base Validator (no patch) that work just fine with master/detail type
> records.
>
> The intent is to either resolve or postpone all outstanding bugs against
> Validator before it releases. This is an attempt to resolve 8787. Can
> you give me an example of a form that you can't currently validate?
>
> James
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Validator 1.0 Release (Second Call)
Posted by James Turner <tu...@blackbear.com>.
At 08:56 PM 9/29/2002, V. Cekvenich wrote:
>As a non commiter I will only comment that I am very, very glad someone
>is finaly working on Validator, but I think it still has open issues
>including 8787. So far my client would used a patch up validator which I
>heard others do.
>
>8787 is needed since it used for multi row validation and other master
>detail work.
>It has sample code.
I'm a bit confused here, what don't you think works with indexed field
validations as current. I've got several forms in applications using base
Validator (no patch) that work just fine with master/detail type records.
The intent is to either resolve or postpone all outstanding bugs against
Validator before it releases. This is an attempt to resolve 8787. Can you
give me an example of a form that you can't currently validate?
James
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Validator 1.0 Release (Second Call)
Posted by "V. Cekvenich" <vi...@users.sourceforge.net>.
As a non commiter I will only comment that I am very, very glad someone
is finaly working on Validator, but I think it still has open issues
including 8787. So far my client would used a patch up validator which I
heard others do.
8787 is needed since it used for multi row validation and other master
detail work.
It has sample code.
I see Jame's comment on collection level or item level and it does not
matter I think.
As long as multi row updates and multi row validation work, cool, and
we/I have a chance to test it.
Else I think it is a beta or a RC release, only after the 8787, which
was on your list, is fixed.
V.
James Turner wrote:
> And yea, my first call unto the masses for a vote on a Validator 1.0
> release was met with a deafening silence. So second try: please vote!
>
> +1: Finally having a release of Validator sounds good
> -1: I have a good reason why now would not be a good time to do a release
>
> James
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Validator 1.0 Release (Second Call)
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>.
(Sorry for the delay -- just coming out of the jet lag associated with the
long flight from Tokyo after JavaOne Japan ...)
+1 on Validator 1.0 release, with John as RM and assistance from Scott and
Martin as outlined in other mail.
Craig
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, James Turner wrote:
> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:22:33 -0400
> From: James Turner <tu...@blackbear.com>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Validator 1.0 Release (Second Call)
>
> And yea, my first call unto the masses for a vote on a Validator 1.0
> release was met with a deafening silence. So second try: please vote!
>
> +1: Finally having a release of Validator sounds good
> -1: I have a good reason why now would not be a good time to do a release
>
> James
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>