cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28522] - fd:aggregatefield and fd:split pattern
Date Thu, 22 Apr 2004 06:18:37 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28522>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28522

fd:aggregatefield and fd:split pattern





------- Additional Comments From mpo@apache.org  2004-04-22 06:18 -------
Adding the immediate association that was communicated on the list as well:
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-users&m=108258044924942&w=2)

By the way: would be nice to add to this bug if the proposed workaround works or
not.

hm, supposing I understand what you are saying here my guess is that the 
validation on subwidgets isn't triggering the concattenation and 
subsequent validation on the aggregate level?

hm, this poses another interesting use case to the fact of 
setvalue/validation sequence (haven't looked in detail yet, maybe 
someone else has a better idea)

if my guess is close then you could probably work around this by adding 
additional validation rules on the split fields: i.e. adding validation 
rules enforcing the split-patterns on those substrings

(or even make their datatypes int and validate for minimum values or so, 
will not work for leading zeros though)

Mime
View raw message