beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carlin Rogers" <carlin.rog...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: adding NetUI annotation processing for an external form bean class in check() phase
Date Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:46:29 GMT
Just another note after looking at this some more...

Seems that to handle the MethodDeclaration we would need to have a method
level checker. Otherwise, if we just get the ClassDeclaration from the
MethodDeclaration and pass it into the FormBeanChecker, we could run the
checker multiple times. The FBC would run on the same class for each method
with a validatable property annotation.

Rich, I think we'd need a different method level checker for validation
properties. What do you think. For now I will check in my original work and
then as an iterative step look at making FBAPF handle @Jpf.Validatable*.

Carlin
On 8/23/06, Carlin Rogers <carlin.rogers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Rich,
>
> With the current NetUI AP class hierarchy it wouldn't matter either way.
> The PFCAP and FBCAP both inherit from BaseCoreAnnotationProcessor which
> extends TwoPhaseCoreAnnotationProcessor. The check() "phase" of the TPCAP
> passes each declaration annotation to check(decl) method implemented in the
> BCAP. This BCAP method only gets a checker if the decl is an instance of
> ClassDeclaration. So an external form bean without the @FormBean would not
> get processed.
>
> I guess we could have FBCAP override check(decl) or figure out a way to
> rewrite BCAP to handle a general case of a MethodDeclaration. I think I'd go
> with the former and if the decl is a ClassDeclaration it can just go on to
> the super method. Otherwise check for MethodDeclaration and call the
> getChecker() routine.
>
> Thanks,
> Carlin
>
>
> On 8/23/06, Rich Feit < richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nice job.  Just curious: is it possible for the
> > FormBeanAnnotationProcessorFactory to handle all @Jpf.Validatable*
> > annotations?  PageFlowChecker could still crawl into them if it needed
> > to, but of FBAPF handled them, then its annotation processor should end
> > up getting a shot at all external form bean classes.  Just a thought.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > Carlin Rogers wrote:
> > > I have some local changes for the standalone checker... a new
> > > FormBeanAnnotationProcessorFactory that hooks up the
> > > FormBeanCoreAnnotationProcessor and added an entry in the
> > > META-INF/services/com.sun.mirror.apt.AnnotationProcessorFactory for
> > the
> > > factory. Initial tests seem to be OK. I also have my change that will
> > > check
> > > an external form bean from within FlowControllerChecker, only when
> > > there is
> > > *no* @FormBean.
> > >
> > > I have not added a warning message to users that they should always
> > > have a
> > > @FormBean annotation when using any of the @ValidatableProperty
> > > annotations
> > > in a form bean. I was concerned that there is already a precedent for
> > > just
> > > using the @FormBean to define a message bundle. See the NetUI tutorial
> >
> > > and
> > > the note about using @FormBean...
> > >
> > > http://beehive.apache.org/docs/1.0.1/netui/tutorial.html#validation
> > >
> > > Does anyone feel strongly that we should change the behavior and
> > always
> > > expect @FormBean annotation when using any of the @ValidatableProperty
> > > annotations? If so, I will add the warning and change the tutorial.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Carlin
> > >
> > > On 8/15/06, Rich Feit <richfeit@privatei.com > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> That makes sense to me -- basically we'd be saying that we require a
> > >> top-level annotation if you want to use method- or field-level
> > >> annotations.
> > >>
> > >> You can also just go with your original suggestion, but I think that
> > in
> > >> that case you could end up with multiple errors for a single class.
> > >>
> > >> Rich
> > >>
> > >> Carlin Rogers wrote:
> > >> > Rich,
> > >> >
> > >> > I'll take a look at this more closely and make sure I follow as I'm
> > >> > not yet
> > >> > sure how that impacts the use of the @ValidatableBean annotation
> > >> > (which is
> > >> > used with the validatableBeans attribute of the Controller annot).
> > I
> > >> > guess
> > >> > either @ValidatableBean or @FormBean would be required for
> > >> > @ValidatableProperty?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Carlin
> > >> >
> > >> > On 8/15/06, Rich Feit < richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Carlin,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Makes sense -- I'd forgotten that we don't require the annotation.
> >
> > >> >> Seems like we're being too lax in this case -- I actually think
> > >> that it
> > >> >> would be best to require the @FormBean annotation when using any
> > >> of the
> > >> >> @ValidatableProperty annotations.  We don't want to require
> > @FormBean
> > >> >> just to use an external bean, but I don't see the harm in
> > >> requiring it
> > >> >> when any of the other annotations are used inside the bean.  That
> > >> way,
> > >> >> we can preserve the idea of a standalone checker.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> For back-compat, you could run a checker on any external form
bean
> > >> from
> > >> >> within PageFlowChecker (as you suggested), but only when there
is
> > >> *no*
> > >> >> @FormBean.  If you encounter any @ValidatableProperty annotations
> > in
> > >> >> that case, you could deprecation-warn that @FormBean should be
> > used.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> What do you think?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Rich
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Carlin Rogers wrote:
> > >> >> > Rich,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I have a question about the suggestion to create and use
the
> > FBAPF.
> > >> It
> > >> >> > seems
> > >> >> > that this would work only in the case that the standalone
> > includes
> > >> >> the @
> > >> >> > Jpf.FormBean annotation. However, users can define validation
> > rules
> > >> >> > without
> > >> >> > @Jpf.FormBean and just use @Jpf.ValidatableProperty. The
> > FormBean
> > >> >> > allows the
> > >> >> > class to define its own message bundle for validation errors,
> > but
> > >> it's
> > >> >> > just
> > >> >> > an option.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > We need to make sure that we check the ValidatableProperty
> > before
> > >> >> > going to
> > >> >> > generate() to provide AP error information. The
> > ValidatableProperty
> > >> >> > can be
> > >> >> > on a method (of a bean) and an annotation type (listed in
the @
> > >> >> > Jpf.Controller or @Jpf.Action). Since it's not just associated
> > to a
> > >> >> type,
> > >> >> > would we still be able to do something like you suggested
and
> > >> create
> > >> >> > an AP
> > >> >> > factory for ValidatableProperty? Maybe I'm missing something
> > though
> > >> >> with
> > >> >> > what you were suggesting.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> > Carlin
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On 8/14/06, Rich Feit < richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Hey Carlin,
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> I think what might be better would be to make a
> > >> >> >> FormBeanAnnotationProcessorFactory in
> > >> >> >> compiler-apt/org/apache/beehive/netui/compiler/apt, and
make it
> > >> >> >> responsible for the form bean annotation (you'd need
to remove
> > >> that
> > >> >> >> annotation from the list of supported annotations in
> > >> >> >> PageFlowAnnotationProcessorFactory).  FBAPF could then
simply
> > >> >> return a
> > >> >> >> FormBeanCoreAnnotationProcessorFactory -- which already
exists
> > >> -- in
> > >> >> its
> > >> >> >> getCoreProcessorFor().  I honestly cannot remember why
I didn't
> > do
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> >> -- sorry.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> If it turns out that this doesn't work for some reason,
you
> > could
> > >> >> also
> > >> >> >> roll the functionality from FormBeanCoreAnnotationProcessor
> > into
> > >> >> >> PageFlowCoreAnnotationProcessor (and to delete the former).
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> In either case, you end up with standalone checking form
bean
> > >> >> classes,
> > >> >> >> which is nicer because you don't have to worry about
multiple
> > >> >> >> PageFlowCheckers triggering checking on the same external
form
> > >> bean
> > >> >> >> class, and it's just cleaner to have it be standalone.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> All that said, I didn't wire it up in the first place,
so if
> > >> you run
> > >> >> >> into any difficulties let me know -- it's possible there's
> > >> something
> > >> >> I'm
> > >> >> >> missing here.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Rich
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Carlin Rogers wrote:
> > >> >> >> > I'm taking a look at BEEHIVE-1127 and wanted to
share some
> > >> thoughts
> > >> >> >> about
> > >> >> >> > ensuring the annotation processing of validatable
bean
> > >> properties
> > >> >> >> > declared
> > >> >> >> > in an external form bean class during the check()
phase.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > The current implementation for processing of the
Controller
> > >> >> >> > annotations does
> > >> >> >> > not process external form bean during the check()
phase of
> > the
> > >> >> >> > TwoPhaseCoreAnnotationProcessor. During the Controller
> > >> annotation
> > >> >> >> > processing, FlowControllerChecker.onCheck() creates
the
> > >> >> >> > FormBeanChecker and
> > >> >> >> > then during the onCheckInternal() uses it to check
> > >> >> ValidatableProperty
> > >> >> >> > annotations on inner classes only.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > I'd like to modify FlowControllerChecker.checkMethod()
(for
> > >> action
> > >> >> >> > grammar
> > >> >> >> > checking) to also look at the parameter of an action
and
> > >> check for
> > >> >> >> > validation rules. The change would only use the
> > >> FormBeanChecker on
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> >> > parameter class if it is a ClassDeclaration without
a
> > declaring
> > >> >> type
> > >> >> >> > (so we
> > >> >> >> > don't re-check an inner class). Does this sound
right? Anyone
> > >> have
> > >> >> >> some
> > >> >> >> > additional thoughts?
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Rich, do you have some input on this AP change?
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> >> > Carlin
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message