commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Graham <>
Subject Re: Commons Validator Limitation
Date Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:39:22 GMT
FYI, when posting to commons-dev or commons-user you should prefix the
subject line with the component name like [validator].  This allows people
to filter out messages for components they're not interested in.


--- "Moyer, Janet" <> wrote:
> I recently reported bug in Jakarta Commons validation
> (  I want to
> ask
> whether this is actually a permanent limitation on the product, or is it
> likely to be corrected? 
> Here's the background:  I wanted to use Commons Validator for business
> object validation.  Using Commons validator is great in that it allows
> us to
> easily manage and apply sets of validation rules, and provides a
> consistent
> way of handling validation errors.  We're pretty sure all or most of our
> rules can be expressed with Validator's XML rules. So far the proof of
> concept works well. 
> The problem we have is in how the Validator handles exceptions.  Our
> rules
> access databases and backend systems for data needed during validation.
> If a
> system problem occurs, such as a database is down, our rules try to
> throw a
> ValidatorException. Since the plugin methods are invoked by reflection,
> our
> exceptions are wrapped in InvocationTargetExceptions.
> Validator.validate()
> treats this as a validator error rather than a ValidatorException.  This
> means all our system exceptions are treated the same as data problems. 
> For
> example, we have a rule that validates a duplicate add of a customer
> account.  The validation plugin reads a database to check whether the
> account exists.  The problem is that if the database is down, the
> Validator.validate() masks the exception, and tells us that the account
> already exists.
> Are we using the validation framework inappropriately? Should commons
> validation only be used for lightweight validation such as Struts, or is
> this an issue that is likely to be addressed? 
> Thanks for your attention.
> Regards,
> Janet
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail is intended only 
> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
> contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
> disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this communication
> in error, please do not distribute and delete the original message. 
> Please notify the sender by E-Mail at the address shown. Thank you for
> your compliance..
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message