cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Portier <...@outerthought.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Revisiting Woody's form definition
Date Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:29:06 GMT


Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> 
>> Sylvain Wallez dijo:
>>  
>>
>>> Not a problem, since <wb:assert> is just a particular implementation of
>>> Validator. So what about :
>>>  <wb:validate>
>>>    <wb:auto-validate-using-business-model/>
>>>  </wb:validate>
>>>   
>>
>> Hmm. At the first look it is great for people starting writing from now
>> the beans! But, ... :(
>>
>> I see a problem:
>>
>> think in people that has already to many Beans? (This is not my case, but
>> I think about other adopters that already had a good implemented Business
>> model and what to use it with Cocoon).
>>
>> Also other problem is that we will force people to write the
>> validationXXX()?, verificationXXX?, checkXXX()? or checkDirtyXXX()
>> function in a defined style. This sometimes is not good. The Modular
>> database implementation require to write database sequences in a defined
>> style. If you already has a database this is not easy to rewrite it to
>> make use of the modular database style.
>>
>> I am not trying to find or create a hair in the good taste soup. This are
>> only random thought. :)
>>  
>>
> 
> I think you missed the real meaning of my post : since validators are 
> pluggable, you can write you own and do whatever you want in it !
> 
> Cocoon should provide the most useful and generic implementations, but 
> it does not lock with the provides implementations.
> 
> Sylvain
> 

yep, totally agree here
that is what I meant when writing to Carsten about this kind of 
validation being dependend on the business object model (this is 
where I use the word 'arbitrary' so often)


since:
woody cannot impose a validation pattern on the business model
and the business model can't impose a validation pattern upon woody
(with validation pattern I mean: methodnames but also 
return-types or exception behavior)

conclusion:
you will need to hook this up yourself, but of course: woody will 
provide the hooks!

-marc=
-- 
Marc Portier                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at              http://radio.weblogs.com/0116284/
mpo@outerthought.org                              mpo@apache.org


Mime
View raw message