commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32343] - [validator] Javascript Rendering Extension
Date Fri, 03 Dec 2004 08:34:30 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=32343>.
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=32343





------- Additional Comments From nacho@visual-ma.com  2004-12-03 09:34 -------
Hi Niall,

> For me you still need to make the use-case for adding the additional 
> complexity. I don't see it as an issue to have to name fields uniquely on the 
> form - in fact it seems like a good thing to me.

I think the use-case is that Struts form handling permits arrays of strings (or
whatever). Before using Struts I found myself quite a few times having fields
named: text1, text2, text3... when what I really wanted was a single text-field
with multiple possible values. This is not a every-day use-case but it does
happen. The truth is that I've only used it with text-fields, but I thought that
it might be nice to have a general solution for all kinds of fields.

Also, if these functions do work properly, I think the complexity of validator
gets reduced as you can see in validateRequired and validateInteger I have
provided. 

> You could raise a bugzilla for this after this enhancement suggestion is 
> accepted - it might anoy some people if you raise one against a feature that 
> isn't yet in Validator ;-)

What I meant is that I am not sure I have placed this in the right place.
Really, what I am proposing fits in validator. The thing is that, since your
extension involves some js rewriting I thought it would be good to start a
debate on this.

> Also I'm still not sure how I'd integrate this into the javascript that this 
> extension is generating, but if it does get into validator you could submit a 
> patch with your bugzilla :-)

I am willing to help if necessary no matter what happens with my proposal. I
think your extension is a very good enhancement for validator.


Nacho

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message