commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul Benedict" <pbened...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [validator] urge to commit rising...
Date Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:06:18 GMT
Niall,

Can you add a copy of this email to the Validator wiki? I think this is
project plan information that's too good to let go.

Paul

On 10/11/07, Ben Speakmon <bspeakmon@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Makes perfect sense.
>
> In the spirit of starting slow, I think I'll look at porting oro regexes
> to
> JDK 1.4 first and making sure that all still works. If anyone finds time
> to
> jump on refactoring before I get to it, that's fine with me :)
>
> Ideally I'd like to get a 1.4 release under way after the work Niall
> describes is completed to everyone's satisfaction -- again, I have to
> support validator at work, and I'd feel better about that if it had
> recently
> gone through a release push. I can't speculate on timeframe other than it
> would probably not be before the end of the year due to the other demands
> on
> my time.
>
> On 10/11/07, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/9/07, Ben Speakmon <bspeakmon@apache.org> wrote:
> > > I've been looking at validator for a week or so since my RL job now
> > requires
> > > me to support it. To that end I'd like to help out. Eventually I'd
> want
> > to
> > > look closely at JSR 303, especially having annotations for fields and
> > > methods, but for the current work I'm happy to help out on the 1.4port
> > and
> > > refactoring. Niall, assuming you're still the leading hand on this,
> can
> > you
> > > let me know where I'd be most useful to start with? In the meantime
> I'm
> > > going to poke through the code.
> >
> > Its months since I found any time for validator work. The two main
> > goals I had for the next validator release was:
> >
> > 1) remove the dependency on ORO for regex support by moving to a
> > minimum dependency of JDK 1.4 and using java's built in regex.
> >
> > 2) Refactor remaining validation routines into the "o.a.c.routines"
> > package and deprecate the older ones in o.a.c package.
> >
> > There are three remaining validation routines which need to be
> > refactored into the new package: Credit Card, Email and URL. As part
> > of the refactoring into the new package I took the opportunity to
> > re-write/improve the validation routines that I've done so far and was
> > hoping to do the same with the remaining three.
> >
> > These three IMO should be broken out into smaller validation routines.
> > For example both URL and Email validation includes validating an IP
> > address and that logic is useful in its own right and should be
> > factored out. The same goes for the check digit validation which is
> > part of the credit card validator. I made a start on this process by
> > factoring out check digit validation[1] and creating a generic
> > CodeValidator[2] (which combines regex, min/max length and check
> > digit). I also have some stuff in-progress that I never committed
> > (e.g. an IPv4 validator).
> >
> > [1] http://tinyurl.com/yqdhg8
> > [2] http://tinyurl.com/25zo2u
> >
> > This is the vague plan that I had for the remaining routines:
> >
> > 1) Beak out IP address and hostname validation into their own routines.
> > 2) Refactor Emal and URL validation to use the same IP
> > address/hostname validation
> > 3) Refactor the credit card validator to use the new check digit
> > validation OR perhaps to use the new CodeValidator
> >
> > The one issue that I haven't looked at or worked out what to do about
> > is the logic in the Email validator which strips out comments (see
> > stripComments() method) - I'm not even sure that logic works correctly
> > and it also uses an ORO "substitue" method iteratively.
> >
> > Lastly once the above is done then I was planning on switching the old
> > validations to use the new versions in the routines package - and
> > deprecate them. Also decide on a plan of what to do with the
> > GenericValidator and GenericTypeValidator - we could leave them
> > unchanged or provide something equivalent in the new routines package
> > - I had a vague idea to combine them into one class with the methods
> > from GenericValidator prefixed with "is" (they return boolean) and the
> > GenericTypeValidator methods prefixed with "validate" (return an
> > object) - which would be consistent with what I've done in other parts
> > of the new "routines" package.
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > > --Ben
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message