You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by Eitan Suez <ei...@uptodata.com> on 2003/05/26 05:47:46 UTC
Numeric Field..
Hi,
i noticed that one can use the ValidField component in conjunction
with various
validators such a a NumberValidator. A ValidField component
reference its validator.
i also noticed the component contrib:NumericField; the main
difference appears
to be that the numeric validation is built into the field instead of
being delegated
to the validator.
both methods of doing numeric validation appear to be interchangeable.
which of the two methods would yall say is the better practice, and
why?
thanks,
/ eitan
Re: Numeric Field..
Posted by Eitan Suez <ei...@uptodata.com>.
terrific. may i assume that the tapestry components library has a good
chance
of growing significantly over the next few months? (that's not to say
that it doesn't
already have a significant number of pre-built components).
thanks, eitan
On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 23:13 US/Central, Richard Lewis-Shell wrote:
> We use NumberField/DateField/ValidatingTextField exclusively, because
> they
> require fewer lines of code, and we are 'lazy'. But it really is a
> matter
> of style/preference. I guess there is greater reuse potential if you
> create
> a helper beans explicitly, but, in our app anyway (882
> pages/components and
> counting...), we have found very few places where such a bean
> can/should be
> reused. They are apparently only there for backwards compatibility
> with the
> pre-ValidField days - there was mention that these contrib versions of
> ValidField components were to be dropped for 3.0, but I am not sure of
> the
> status/likelihood of that...
>
> Richard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eitan Suez" <ei...@uptodata.com>
> To: <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 3:47 PM
> Subject: Numeric Field..
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> i noticed that one can use the ValidField component in conjunction
>> with various
>> validators such a a NumberValidator. A ValidField component
>> reference its validator.
>>
>> i also noticed the component contrib:NumericField; the main
>> difference appears
>> to be that the numeric validation is built into the field instead
>> of
>> being delegated
>> to the validator.
>>
>> both methods of doing numeric validation appear to be
>> interchangeable.
>> which of the two methods would yall say is the better practice, and
>> why?
>>
>> thanks,
>> / eitan
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
thanks,
/ eitan
Re: Numeric Field..
Posted by Richard Lewis-Shell <rl...@mac.com>.
We use NumberField/DateField/ValidatingTextField exclusively, because they
require fewer lines of code, and we are 'lazy'. But it really is a matter
of style/preference. I guess there is greater reuse potential if you create
a helper beans explicitly, but, in our app anyway (882 pages/components and
counting...), we have found very few places where such a bean can/should be
reused. They are apparently only there for backwards compatibility with the
pre-ValidField days - there was mention that these contrib versions of
ValidField components were to be dropped for 3.0, but I am not sure of the
status/likelihood of that...
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eitan Suez" <ei...@uptodata.com>
To: <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 3:47 PM
Subject: Numeric Field..
> Hi,
>
> i noticed that one can use the ValidField component in conjunction
> with various
> validators such a a NumberValidator. A ValidField component
> reference its validator.
>
> i also noticed the component contrib:NumericField; the main
> difference appears
> to be that the numeric validation is built into the field instead of
> being delegated
> to the validator.
>
> both methods of doing numeric validation appear to be interchangeable.
> which of the two methods would yall say is the better practice, and
> why?
>
> thanks,
> / eitan
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>