commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rory Winston <rwins...@eircom.net>
Subject Re: [Validator] Plans for Validator 1.2 and beyond
Date Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:15:31 GMT
Niall,

Sounds great. +1

Cheers,
Rory

Niall Pemberton wrote:

>I'd like to propose that we target a Validator 1.2 release in the next
>couple of months. I have three motivations for this:
>
>1) I'd like it to include the JavaScript Extension I've proposed in Bug
>#32343 and along with inheritance and a couple of other features think it
>would make a great release.
>
>2) Seems that over on the Struts Dev list people are chomping at the bit to
>start work on Struts 1.3 and IMO it would be good to get a Validator 1.2 out
>of the door so that Struts 1.3 can take adavantage of a released Validator
>1.2 version early in its development cycle. Compared to previous experiences
>with Struts & Validator, this would put us ahead of the game, allowing
>Validator to be well bedded in before a Struts 1.3 releasee.
>
>3) Once Validator 1.2 is out of the door, we can throw the baby out with the
>bath water and plunge into Validator 2.0 - yeah!
>
>
>If people buy into this, then the next step is to agree the scope of whats
>going to be in a 1.2 release. My thoughts are the following....
>
>
>1) Inheritance (Already Implemented)
>===========
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27870
>
>I believe this is currently the only major difference between Validator 1.2
>and Validator 1.1.4 - I haven't yet had time to test out Validator 1.2 - but
>plan to do so shortly. This is a great feature though and I'm sure would be
>greatly appreciated in a release by the user community.
>
>
>2) JavaScript Extension
>==================
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32343
>
>I just posted a 1.0.8 version which I hope is pretty close to being ready
>for inclusion in Validator - following feedback from a few people. The one
>concern I have is that until recently I didn't know much about JavaScript
>and as well as adding the dynamic JavaScript generation I've done wholesale
>refactoring of the existing static JavaScript Validators. No ones posted -ve
>feedback yet on the JavaScript and I'm hoping that people who've had a look
>at it are a. know JavaScript well and b. have looked closely at what I've
>done. Unless people object or want more time to consider/evaluate this, I
>plan to add this in next week or so - although there needs to be  some
>discussion about how it should be integrated first (I will give ample
>warning before I actually do anything).
>
>As a side benefit, I believe the following will also be resolved when/if
>this is included:
>
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21043
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23372
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27414
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22687
>
>3) Remove <arg position=""> attribute
>=============================
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31194
>
>I had a brain fart when I applied a patch for this and as David Graham
>pointed out should have been so quick off the mark at putting it in. I have
>attached a new patch for this a while ago, but no feedback so far. I would
>like to apply this - any objections?
>
>4) Enable Variables to come From Message Resources
>=========================================
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32522
>
>I just posted this and its probably a fairly minor change, but I believe it
>"completes the circle" for i18n applications. Currently you can have a i18n
>application with one <formset> for messages, but not for the variables. With
>validators such as mask and date their variables are often locale specific,
>so IMO this would make life alot easier for i18n.
>
>5) Outstanding Bugs
>================
>Theres currently 12 outstanding bugs - I believe the JavaScript Extension
>resolves the following
>
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14471
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30872
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31534
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31790
>
>>>From a quick review of the rest the ones IMO that initially look like they
>need to be addressed are
>
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29541
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30686
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30955
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31644
>
>
>Niall
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>  
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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