Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <4086B069.1020703@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:33:29 +0200
From: Joerg Heinicke <joerg.heinicke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [cforms] refactoring questions (was Re: cvs commit:
 cocoon-2.1/src/blocks/forms/java/org/apache/cocoon/forms/formmodel
 Struct.java Messages.java Repeater.java MultiValueField.java
 AbstractContainerWidget.java
 Output.java Upload.java Action.java Form.java ContainerDelegate.java
 AbstractWidget.java
 Field.java Union.java BooleanField.java Widget.java)
References: <20040420221928.11898.qmail@minotaur.apache.org>
 <4085A446.5050103@outerthought.org> <20040421012425.GE27508@keow.org>
 <40861558.7020403@outerthought.org> <408660D5.90800@outerthought.org>
In-Reply-To: <408660D5.90800@outerthought.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 21.04.2004 13:53, Marc Portier wrote:

> so I'm going for getId on form to return "" (which it was)
> and removing getId() == null checks since I favour the NPE here

Please not waiting for the NPE somewhere latter in the code for the 
reasons Ugo pointed out.

>>>> 7/ should validation stop as soon as possible or continue to allow 
>>>> all validation errors to be set?
>>>
>>> Don't know which is best.  *If* we cannot decide (due to different needs
>>> in different usecases) then we will need to add an attribute to let the
>>> form designer control the behaviour.
>>
>> hm, we should at least be consistent
> 
> clarifying a bit more:
> 
> we seem to have two distinct cases:
> widgets with child-widgets
> - i've seen code that doesn't evaluate the parent if one of the kids is
> invalid
> - but all kids seem to be evaluated even if a previous brother failed
> 
> widgets with validation on definition and widget level
> - widget level rules stop evaulation if the definition level was not ok,
> and as soon as one of the widget-level validations fails
> 
> I haven't given it much thought yet, if there are clear positions out
> there I'm quite happy to just enforce code wise (and add some javadocs
> removing any possible future surprise)
> 
> so comments welcome

IMO validation should always run on all widgets as it must be possible 
for the user to get a whole form fixed in one step:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=107962387820282&w=4
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=107963156530885&w=4

Joerg