[validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>]

Salut Eric,

since you mentioned the validation: did you have the time to have a
look at the onami migrated [validation] component? migration should be
quiet complete, but I'd wait for feedbacks after a discussion before
to move it to /trunk.

TIA!
-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/


On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>> btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request for validation
>> with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2].
>
> cool stuff, very well done, congrats! :)
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/

Re: [validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>]

Hi Mikhail,

> I can't find a way to assign that issue to myself in Jira - not enough
> carma? :)

can you test please if you are now able to do it?
TIA!
-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/

Re: [validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>]

>> Good Morning Mikhail!
>>
> It's 16:37 here =)

LOL, alway nice jokes due to different timezones :)

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/

Re: [validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Mikhail Mazursky <mi...@gmail.com>]

2013/2/10 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>

> Good Morning Mikhail!
>
> It's 16:37 here =)


> > I committed those changes as ONAMI-79 [1].
>
> very good, well done!
>
> > I also made ConfigurationStateProvider package private and Singleton (it
> > was unscoped).
>
> this sounds something that could have been tracked in JIRA, I suggest
> you to granularize codebase modifications as well, and track APIs
> changes with issues on Jira.
>
> Ok, understood.


> > Do we want ValidateMethodInterceptor to be public API? Is there any value
> > in that? I just don't know.
> >
>
> IIRC, if the interceptor is not public, Guice cannot introspect the
> injection points - do you have spare time to give a test?
> If that works, then fill an issue on Jira and make it private, no
> reasons to keep it public.
>
> Tests pass with interceptor declared package private. I applied changes as
ONAMI-80.


>  > I can't find a way to assign that issue to myself in Jira - not enough
> > carma? :)
>
> Ah yes, I always forget that Jira groups are not LDAP groups - I'll
> add you in the right group in a short while.
>
> Works fine now, thanks!


> Thanks, have a nice weekend!
>

Let it be nice WE for you too!


> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Simone!
> >
>
> >
> > Some questions:
> > Do we want ValidateMethodInterceptor to be public API? Is there any value
> > in that? I just don't know.
> >
> > I can't find a way to assign that issue to myself in Jira - not enough
> > carma? :)
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ONAMI-79
> >
> >
> > 2013/2/5 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
> >
> >> > Looks like original authors just prefer setter/field injection.
> >>
> >> feel free to speak with me, I am the "guilty" guy ;)
> >>
> >> feel free to improve it, fill an issue and assign it to yourself, and
> >> no reason to provide a patch - we have an SCM wich allow us review the
> >> code, it sends us emails notification when someone checks in code, so
> >> we can discuss about codebase modifications.
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot in advance, all the best!
> >> -Simo
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
> >> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi, Simone!
> >> >
> >> > All classes where setters can be replaced with constructor injection.
> >> Like
> >> > ValidatorProvider. I'll take a closer look once i have time (probably
> on
> >> > the WE) and send patch for review.
> >> >
> >> > Looks like original authors just prefer setter/field injection. IMHO
> it's
> >> > not the best way to constuct singletons as it lacks enforced
> >> immutability.
> >> > Also, it may be not 100% correct under Java memory model.
> >> >
> >> > 2013/2/3 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Mikhail!
> >> >>
> >> >> thanks a lot for reviewing! Can you specify please the class(es) you
> >> >> noticed can be improved?
> >> >>
> >> >> TIA, all the best,
> >> >> -Simo
> >> >>
> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
> >> >> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Hello.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Validation looks good. One thing i would have improved in code is
> get
> >> rid
> >> >> > of setter injection in favour of constructor injection. That would
> >> made
> >> >> all
> >> >> > those classes explicitly immutable and thread safe.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2013/2/2 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Salut Eric,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> since you mentioned the validation: did you have the time to have
> a
> >> >> >> look at the onami migrated [validation] component? migration
> should
> >> be
> >> >> >> quiet complete, but I'd wait for feedbacks after a discussion
> before
> >> >> >> to move it to /trunk.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> TIA!
> >> >> >> -Simo
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> >> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> >> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> >> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Simone Tripodi <
> >> >> simonetripodi@apache.org>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request
> for
> >> >> >> validation
> >> >> >> >> with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2].
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > cool stuff, very well done, congrats! :)
> >> >> >> > -Simo
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> >> >> > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> >> >> > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> >> >> > http://www.99soft.org/
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>

Re: [validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>]

Good Morning Mikhail!

> I committed those changes as ONAMI-79 [1].

very good, well done!

> I also made ConfigurationStateProvider package private and Singleton (it
> was unscoped).

this sounds something that could have been tracked in JIRA, I suggest
you to granularize codebase modifications as well, and track APIs
changes with issues on Jira.

> Do we want ValidateMethodInterceptor to be public API? Is there any value
> in that? I just don't know.
>

IIRC, if the interceptor is not public, Guice cannot introspect the
injection points - do you have spare time to give a test?
If that works, then fill an issue on Jira and make it private, no
reasons to keep it public.

> I can't find a way to assign that issue to myself in Jira - not enough
> carma? :)

Ah yes, I always forget that Jira groups are not LDAP groups - I'll
add you in the right group in a short while.

Thanks, have a nice weekend!
-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
<mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Simone!
>

>
> Some questions:
> Do we want ValidateMethodInterceptor to be public API? Is there any value
> in that? I just don't know.
>
> I can't find a way to assign that issue to myself in Jira - not enough
> carma? :)
>
> WDYT?
>
> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ONAMI-79
>
>
> 2013/2/5 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
>
>> > Looks like original authors just prefer setter/field injection.
>>
>> feel free to speak with me, I am the "guilty" guy ;)
>>
>> feel free to improve it, fill an issue and assign it to yourself, and
>> no reason to provide a patch - we have an SCM wich allow us review the
>> code, it sends us emails notification when someone checks in code, so
>> we can discuss about codebase modifications.
>>
>> Thanks a lot in advance, all the best!
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
>> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi, Simone!
>> >
>> > All classes where setters can be replaced with constructor injection.
>> Like
>> > ValidatorProvider. I'll take a closer look once i have time (probably on
>> > the WE) and send patch for review.
>> >
>> > Looks like original authors just prefer setter/field injection. IMHO it's
>> > not the best way to constuct singletons as it lacks enforced
>> immutability.
>> > Also, it may be not 100% correct under Java memory model.
>> >
>> > 2013/2/3 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
>> >
>> >> Hi Mikhail!
>> >>
>> >> thanks a lot for reviewing! Can you specify please the class(es) you
>> >> noticed can be improved?
>> >>
>> >> TIA, all the best,
>> >> -Simo
>> >>
>> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> >> http://www.99soft.org/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
>> >> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hello.
>> >> >
>> >> > Validation looks good. One thing i would have improved in code is get
>> rid
>> >> > of setter injection in favour of constructor injection. That would
>> made
>> >> all
>> >> > those classes explicitly immutable and thread safe.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2013/2/2 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
>> >> >
>> >> >> Salut Eric,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> since you mentioned the validation: did you have the time to have a
>> >> >> look at the onami migrated [validation] component? migration should
>> be
>> >> >> quiet complete, but I'd wait for feedbacks after a discussion before
>> >> >> to move it to /trunk.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> TIA!
>> >> >> -Simo
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> >> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> >> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> >> >> http://www.99soft.org/
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Simone Tripodi <
>> >> simonetripodi@apache.org>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request for
>> >> >> validation
>> >> >> >> with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2].
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > cool stuff, very well done, congrats! :)
>> >> >> > -Simo
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> >> >> > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> >> >> > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> >> >> > http://www.99soft.org/
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>

Re: [validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Mikhail Mazursky <mi...@gmail.com>]

Hello Simone!

I committed those changes as ONAMI-79 [1].
I also made ConfigurationStateProvider package private and Singleton (it
was unscoped).

Some questions:
Do we want ValidateMethodInterceptor to be public API? Is there any value
in that? I just don't know.

I can't find a way to assign that issue to myself in Jira - not enough
carma? :)

WDYT?

[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ONAMI-79


2013/2/5 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>

> > Looks like original authors just prefer setter/field injection.
>
> feel free to speak with me, I am the "guilty" guy ;)
>
> feel free to improve it, fill an issue and assign it to yourself, and
> no reason to provide a patch - we have an SCM wich allow us review the
> code, it sends us emails notification when someone checks in code, so
> we can discuss about codebase modifications.
>
> Thanks a lot in advance, all the best!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, Simone!
> >
> > All classes where setters can be replaced with constructor injection.
> Like
> > ValidatorProvider. I'll take a closer look once i have time (probably on
> > the WE) and send patch for review.
> >
> > Looks like original authors just prefer setter/field injection. IMHO it's
> > not the best way to constuct singletons as it lacks enforced
> immutability.
> > Also, it may be not 100% correct under Java memory model.
> >
> > 2013/2/3 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
> >
> >> Hi Mikhail!
> >>
> >> thanks a lot for reviewing! Can you specify please the class(es) you
> >> noticed can be improved?
> >>
> >> TIA, all the best,
> >> -Simo
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
> >> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hello.
> >> >
> >> > Validation looks good. One thing i would have improved in code is get
> rid
> >> > of setter injection in favour of constructor injection. That would
> made
> >> all
> >> > those classes explicitly immutable and thread safe.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2013/2/2 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
> >> >
> >> >> Salut Eric,
> >> >>
> >> >> since you mentioned the validation: did you have the time to have a
> >> >> look at the onami migrated [validation] component? migration should
> be
> >> >> quiet complete, but I'd wait for feedbacks after a discussion before
> >> >> to move it to /trunk.
> >> >>
> >> >> TIA!
> >> >> -Simo
> >> >>
> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Simone Tripodi <
> >> simonetripodi@apache.org>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request for
> >> >> validation
> >> >> >> with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2].
> >> >> >
> >> >> > cool stuff, very well done, congrats! :)
> >> >> > -Simo
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> >> > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> >> > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> >> > http://www.99soft.org/
> >> >>
> >>
>

Re: [validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>]

> Looks like original authors just prefer setter/field injection.

feel free to speak with me, I am the "guilty" guy ;)

feel free to improve it, fill an issue and assign it to yourself, and
no reason to provide a patch - we have an SCM wich allow us review the
code, it sends us emails notification when someone checks in code, so
we can discuss about codebase modifications.

Thanks a lot in advance, all the best!
-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/


On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
<mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Simone!
>
> All classes where setters can be replaced with constructor injection. Like
> ValidatorProvider. I'll take a closer look once i have time (probably on
> the WE) and send patch for review.
>
> Looks like original authors just prefer setter/field injection. IMHO it's
> not the best way to constuct singletons as it lacks enforced immutability.
> Also, it may be not 100% correct under Java memory model.
>
> 2013/2/3 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
>
>> Hi Mikhail!
>>
>> thanks a lot for reviewing! Can you specify please the class(es) you
>> noticed can be improved?
>>
>> TIA, all the best,
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
>> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello.
>> >
>> > Validation looks good. One thing i would have improved in code is get rid
>> > of setter injection in favour of constructor injection. That would made
>> all
>> > those classes explicitly immutable and thread safe.
>> >
>> >
>> > 2013/2/2 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
>> >
>> >> Salut Eric,
>> >>
>> >> since you mentioned the validation: did you have the time to have a
>> >> look at the onami migrated [validation] component? migration should be
>> >> quiet complete, but I'd wait for feedbacks after a discussion before
>> >> to move it to /trunk.
>> >>
>> >> TIA!
>> >> -Simo
>> >>
>> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> >> http://www.99soft.org/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Simone Tripodi <
>> simonetripodi@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request for
>> >> validation
>> >> >> with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2].
>> >> >
>> >> > cool stuff, very well done, congrats! :)
>> >> > -Simo
>> >> >
>> >> > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> >> > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> >> > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> >> > http://www.99soft.org/
>> >>
>>

Re: [validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Mikhail Mazursky <mi...@gmail.com>]

Hi, Simone!

All classes where setters can be replaced with constructor injection. Like
ValidatorProvider. I'll take a closer look once i have time (probably on
the WE) and send patch for review.

Looks like original authors just prefer setter/field injection. IMHO it's
not the best way to constuct singletons as it lacks enforced immutability.
Also, it may be not 100% correct under Java memory model.

2013/2/3 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>

> Hi Mikhail!
>
> thanks a lot for reviewing! Can you specify please the class(es) you
> noticed can be improved?
>
> TIA, all the best,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > Validation looks good. One thing i would have improved in code is get rid
> > of setter injection in favour of constructor injection. That would made
> all
> > those classes explicitly immutable and thread safe.
> >
> >
> > 2013/2/2 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
> >
> >> Salut Eric,
> >>
> >> since you mentioned the validation: did you have the time to have a
> >> look at the onami migrated [validation] component? migration should be
> >> quiet complete, but I'd wait for feedbacks after a discussion before
> >> to move it to /trunk.
> >>
> >> TIA!
> >> -Simo
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Simone Tripodi <
> simonetripodi@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request for
> >> validation
> >> >> with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2].
> >> >
> >> > cool stuff, very well done, congrats! :)
> >> > -Simo
> >> >
> >> > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> > http://www.99soft.org/
> >>
>

Re: [validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>]

Hi Mikhail!

thanks a lot for reviewing! Can you specify please the class(es) you
noticed can be improved?

TIA, all the best,
-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/


On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
<mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Validation looks good. One thing i would have improved in code is get rid
> of setter injection in favour of constructor injection. That would made all
> those classes explicitly immutable and thread safe.
>
>
> 2013/2/2 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
>
>> Salut Eric,
>>
>> since you mentioned the validation: did you have the time to have a
>> look at the onami migrated [validation] component? migration should be
>> quiet complete, but I'd wait for feedbacks after a discussion before
>> to move it to /trunk.
>>
>> TIA!
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request for
>> validation
>> >> with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2].
>> >
>> > cool stuff, very well done, congrats! :)
>> > -Simo
>> >
>> > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> > http://www.99soft.org/
>>

Re: [validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Mikhail Mazursky <mi...@gmail.com>]

Hello.

Validation looks good. One thing i would have improved in code is get rid
of setter injection in favour of constructor injection. That would made all
those classes explicitly immutable and thread safe.


2013/2/2 Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>

> Salut Eric,
>
> since you mentioned the validation: did you have the time to have a
> look at the onami migrated [validation] component? migration should be
> quiet complete, but I'd wait for feedbacks after a discussion before
> to move it to /trunk.
>
> TIA!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request for
> validation
> >> with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2].
> >
> > cool stuff, very well done, congrats! :)
> > -Simo
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> > http://www.99soft.org/
>

Re: [validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Eric Charles <er...@apache.org>]

On 02/02/2013 15:31, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Salut Eric!
>
> thanks a lot for giving a try, much more than appreciated! :)
>
> there is just an undocumented feature on the site - users can re-throw
> validation exceptions with custom exceptions. But that should be just
> a matter of preparing the release, should not concern the migration to
> sandbox.

I use that rethrow functionality discovered reading the unit test if I 
remember well.

Are you talking about an onami release?
Do you plan to migrate from sandbox to trunk? As I said, I don't see why 
we shouldn't do this directly.

Thx, Eric

>
> Thanks again!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Eric Charles <er...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi Simo,
>> As it is a copy with repackaging, the functionality should be kept/
>>
>> I have checked out
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/onami/sandbox/validation
>>
>> and successfully mvn install.
>>
>> pom looks good
>>
>> Are thinking to any other things to look at?
>> Otherwise, +1 to push this to trunk
>>
>> Thx, Eric
>>
>>
>> On 02/02/2013 15:03, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>
>>> Salut Eric,
>>>
>>> since you mentioned the validation: did you have the time to have a
>>> look at the onami migrated [validation] component? migration should be
>>> quiet complete, but I'd wait for feedbacks after a discussion before
>>> to move it to /trunk.
>>>
>>> TIA!
>>> -Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request for
>>>>> validation
>>>>> with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2].
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cool stuff, very well done, congrats! :)
>>>> -Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/

Re: [validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>]

Salut Eric!

thanks a lot for giving a try, much more than appreciated! :)

there is just an undocumented feature on the site - users can re-throw
validation exceptions with custom exceptions. But that should be just
a matter of preparing the release, should not concern the migration to
sandbox.

Thanks again!
-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/


On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Eric Charles <er...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Simo,
> As it is a copy with repackaging, the functionality should be kept/
>
> I have checked out
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/onami/sandbox/validation
>
> and successfully mvn install.
>
> pom looks good
>
> Are thinking to any other things to look at?
> Otherwise, +1 to push this to trunk
>
> Thx, Eric
>
>
> On 02/02/2013 15:03, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>
>> Salut Eric,
>>
>> since you mentioned the validation: did you have the time to have a
>> look at the onami migrated [validation] component? migration should be
>> quiet complete, but I'd wait for feedbacks after a discussion before
>> to move it to /trunk.
>>
>> TIA!
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request for
>>>> validation
>>>> with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2].
>>>
>>>
>>> cool stuff, very well done, congrats! :)
>>> -Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>> http://www.99soft.org/

Re: [validation] did anyone have a look at current validation status?

[Eric Charles <er...@apache.org>]

Hi Simo,
As it is a copy with repackaging, the functionality should be kept/

I have checked out
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/onami/sandbox/validation

and successfully mvn install.

pom looks good

Are thinking to any other things to look at?
Otherwise, +1 to push this to trunk

Thx, Eric

On 02/02/2013 15:03, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Salut Eric,
>
> since you mentioned the validation: did you have the time to have a
> look at the onami migrated [validation] component? migration should be
> quiet complete, but I'd wait for feedbacks after a discussion before
> to move it to /trunk.
>
> TIA!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request for validation
>>> with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2].
>>
>> cool stuff, very well done, congrats! :)
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/