deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rudy De Busscher <rdebussc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DeltaSpike Roadmap
Date Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:39:05 GMT
@method validation

As I used the Extval features for these kind of situations and wrote
extensions for it to enhance the crossfield validation (like your example
of the password, see also [1] )
I'm very interested to have this in DeltaSpike/help with such a feature (if
you need it) in DeltaSpike

regards
Rudy

[1] =
http://jsfcorner.blogspot.be/2011/09/cross-field-validation-with-jsf-and.html

On 28 March 2013 10:31, Arne Limburg <arne.limburg@openknowledge.de> wrote:

> Imho when we think about JSF validation we don't need to mimic existing
> features of JSF 2, but we have to see where features are missing.
>
> I.e. BVAL 1.1 will contain method-validation, but JSF completely missed to
> integrate it. This is where we should fill the gap.
>
> I am thinking about something like
>
> <h:form>
>   <f:validateMethod value="#{myBean.updatePassword(myBean.password,
> myBean.repeatedPassword)}" />
>   <h:inputSecret value="#{myBean.password}" />
>   <h:inputSecret value="#{myBean.repeatedPassword}" />
> </h:form>
>
> where updatePassword is validated in the PROCESS_VALIDATION phase (with
> the local values of both fields) and ideally instead of calling
> MyBean.setPassword and MyBean.setRepeatedPassword in the UPDATE_MODEL
> phase it should call MyBean.updatePasswordŠ
>
> Such feature would improve cross-field validation enormously.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards,
> Arne
>
> P.S.: I just prototyped the feature and it basically worked also I am not
> sure about the design (in my prototype f:validateMethod is a JSF
> Component...)
>
> Am 25.03.13 22:20 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter <struberg@yahoo.de>:
>
> >with JSF-2 this is now almost obsolete, isn't?
> >JSF-2 has <f:validateBean> which works perfectly fine.
> >
> >LieGrue,
> >strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.thomas@gmail.com>
> >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Cc:
> >> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 5:31 PM
> >> Subject: Re: DeltaSpike Roadmap
> >>
> >> Are you sure? PrimeFaces does not have one. I only know richfaces'
> >> graphValidator and it's IMO not that easy and cool as s:validateForm.
> >>
> >> 2013/3/25 John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>>  I believe all of the major JSF component libraries support some type
> >>>of
> >>>  form validation using BV.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Thomas Andraschko <
> >>>  andraschko.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  > Any news about s:validateForm?
> >>>  > As i said, it's great feature of seam3 and would perfectly fit DS
> >> (IMO).
> >>>  >
> >>>  > I could also add it to DS if no one have enough time... :)
> >>>  >
> >>>  > 2012/12/17 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> >>>  >
> >>>  > > there is a reason why it is just an add-on ;)
> >>>  > > and yes, if you would do it with the jsf2-api, it would be a
bit
> >>>  easier.
> >>>  > > but you can use this add-on also for jsf 1.x and some users who
> >> don't
> >>>  > like
> >>>  > > to use seam are happy with it.
> >>>  > > however, i just mentioned it as an example to show that cdi
> >> isn't
> >>>  needed
> >>>  > to
> >>>  > > implement such a functionality.
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > regards,
> >>>  > > gerhard
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > 2012/12/17 Lincoln Baxter, III <lincolnbaxter@gmail.com>
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > > Also, note that the use-cases for <s:validateForm>
and
> >> the latter
> >>>  > example
> >>>  > > > are different in their usage. IMO, <s:validateForm>
is
> >> much more
> >>>  > > > declarative and simple than the example provided from
> >> extval.
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > > > Just write a validator and attach it like you would normal
> >> to a
> >>>  > component
> >>>  > > > in the view, wherever you want to use it. You can also
> >> re-use
> >>>  > > > form-validators using this method, instead of using some
(in
> >> my
> >>>  > opinion)
> >>>  > > > strange view-filtering logic in the FormValidator
> >> annotation.
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > > > <s:validateForm> is/was one of the most well recieved
> >> feature of Seam
> >>>  > > > Faces, and I think it deserves serious consideration. Can
> >> you do form
> >>>  > > > validation other ways? absolutely, but this way is pretty
> >> compelling
> >>>  > > based
> >>>  > > > on the feedback we got. It also ties in very normally with
> >> the way in
> >>>  > > which
> >>>  > > > JSF handles validation and components, which is not
> >> something that I
> >>>  > can
> >>>  > > > speak about with regard to extval, but I can say that seam
> >> faces does
> >>>  > > this
> >>>  > > > nicely.
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > > > ~Lincoln
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Thomas Andraschko <
> >>>  > > > andraschko.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > > > > Please do not mix both :)
> >>>  > > > > We had the discussion about commons bv constrains.
> >> s:validateForm
> >>>  is
> >>>  > > > > completely different compared to bv constraints.
> >>>  > > > > s:validateForm does not fit the project for common
bv
> >> constraints.
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > > > 2012/12/17 Karl Kildén <karl.kilden@gmail.com>
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > Looks really nice I understand finally :-)
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > In retrospect I don't know why I didn't
> >> check the docs myself,
> >>>  > > probably
> >>>  > > > > > because I read most of the discussion on the phone
> >> to begin with.
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > I then agree with the many suggestions regarding
> >> doing it as a
> >>>  > > parallel
> >>>  > > > > > project. Perhaps that module could have a  sub
> >> module for CDI
> >>>  users
> >>>  > > > that
> >>>  > > > > > included producers and such.
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > Best regards / Karl
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > 2012/12/17 Gerhard Petracek
> >> <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > hi karl,
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > it's implemented via a producer - see
> >> [1].
> >>>  > > > > > > but you don't really need cdi for it -
> >> see e.g. [2].
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > regards,
> >>>  > > > > > > gerhard
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > [1] http://s.apache.org/ury
> >>>  > > > > > > [2]
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>
> >>http://os890.blogspot.co.at/2010/06/multi-field-form-validation-with-jsr
> .
> >>html
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Thomas Andraschko
> >> <andraschko.thomas@gmail.com>
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > As far as i understand, validateAll
just
> >> validates all
> >>>  > components
> >>>  > > > but
> >>>  > > > > > you
> >>>  > > > > > > > can't use custom logic.
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > Checkout the seam docu here:
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> http://docs.jboss.org/seam/3/faces/latest/reference/en-US/html/components
> >>.html
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Karl Kildén
> >> <karl.kilden@gmail.com>
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > Hrmm still not sure I understand.
> >> First off didn't Pete
> >>>  just
> >>>  > > say
> >>>  > > > it
> >>>  > > > > > was
> >>>  > > > > > > > > just a JSF-validator? It also
> >> sounds and reads just like
> >>>  > > > > validateAll
> >>>  > > > > > > from
> >>>  > > > > > > > > omnifaces?
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > What is lacking that you would
like
> >> to see solved by CDI?
> >>>  And
> >>>  > > is
> >>>  > > > > it a
> >>>  > > > > > > > > natural fit for CDI extensions
> >> rather then BV / JSF
> >>>  > extensions?
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > Best regards / Karl
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Thomas Andraschko
> >> <andraschko.thomas@gmail.com>
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > they are nice but i can't
> >> see a replacement for
> >>>  > > s:validateForm.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > IMO s:validateForm is really
a
> >> simple solution for
> >>>  > > cross-field
> >>>  > > > > > > > > validation,
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > which is CDI based.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > THomas
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Karl Kildén
> >> <karl.kilden@gmail.com>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > Well these are the
> >> validators from omnifaces as per my
> >>>  > > > previous
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > recommendation:
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >    -
> >> RequiredCheckboxValidator<
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/RequiredCheckb
> >>oxValidator.xhtml
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >    - validateAll<
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateAll.xh
> >>tml
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >    -
> >> validateAllOrNone<
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateAllOrN
> >>one.xhtml
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >    - validateEqual<
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>
> >>https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateEqual
> .
> >>xhtml
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >    - validateOne<
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOne.xh
> >>tml
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >    -
> >> validateOneOrMore<
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOneOrM
> >>ore.xhtml
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >    -
> >> validateOneOrNone<
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOneOrN
> >>one.xhtml
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >    - validateOrder<
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>
> >>https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateOrder
> .
> >>xhtml
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >    - validateUnique
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >    <
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> https://showcase-omnifaces.rhcloud.com/showcase/validators/validateUnique
> >>.xhtml
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > >Best
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >    regards / Karl
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Thomas
> >> Andraschko <
> >>>  > andraschko.thomas@gmail.com>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > PrimeFaces
> >> doesn't have such a component/utility.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > Also AFAICS it's
> >> based on CDI, so IMO DeltaSpike is a
> >>>  > > good
> >>>  > > > > > place
> >>>  > > > > > > > for
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > it.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/17 Jason
> >> Porter <lightguard.jp@gmail.com>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec
17,
> >> 2012 at 4:54 AM, Pete Muir <
> >>>  > > > > pmuir@redhat.com
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 17
Dec
> >> 2012, at 08:55, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi
> >> karl,
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #1
> >> apache myfaces (extval) doesn't implement
> >>>  jsr
> >>>  > > 303
> >>>  > > > > > (e.g.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > apache
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bval
> >> implements it)
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2
> >> there is no agreement that ds is only
> >>>  backend
> >>>  > > > > oriented
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> regards,
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> gerhard
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> 2012/12/17 Karl Kildén <karl.kilden@gmail.com>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> Hi Thomas, fellow user here.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> BV is as you may know specified in JSR-303. It
> >>>  > has
> >>>  > > > > great
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> implementations by
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> myfaces and hibernate that you can find
> >>>  easily.
> >>>  > > Thus
> >>>  > > > > > this
> >>>  > > > > > > > will
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > not
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> implemented in deltaspike afaik. However
> >>>  > providing
> >>>  > > > > some
> >>>  > > > > > > > common
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> constraints
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> beyond the specification sounds like a good
> >>>  > idea.
> >>>  > > > Note
> >>>  > > > > > > that
> >>>  > > > > > > > in
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > the
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > mean
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> while @Email is almost trivial to implement
> >>>  > > yourself
> >>>  > > > > if
> >>>  > > > > > > you
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > search
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> little. JSR-303 is highly extensible just like
> >>>  > > CDI.
> >>>  > > > > The
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > implementation
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> choose might have it as an extra already.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> For frontend extras I can't say I see an
> >>>  obvious
> >>>  > > > home
> >>>  > > > > in
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > deltaspike
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> (someone correct me if I am wrong about this).
> >>>  > > But I
> >>>  > > > > > think
> >>>  > > > > > > > for
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > now
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> Deltaspike is more backend oriented. I
> >>>  recommend
> >>>  > > > > having
> >>>  > > > > > a
> >>>  > > > > > > > look
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > at
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > omnifaces
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> that already provide several great custom
> >>>  > > > > jsf-validators
> >>>  > > > > > > and
> >>>  > > > > > > > > has
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > an
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > open
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> request for users to ask for additional ones.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> best regards / Karl
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> 2012/12/16 Thomas Andraschko <
> >>>  > > > > > andraschko.thomas@gmail.com
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>  Hi,
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>  is there a roadmap available for all upcoming
> >>>  > > > > features?
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>  Will there also be a BV module in the future?
> >>>  > > Will
> >>>  > > > it
> >>>  > > > > > > also
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > include
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>  commons constraints like Email?
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, I
> >> think this could be a good thing for a
> >>>  > > parallel
> >>>  > > > > > > project
> >>>  > > > > > > > to
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > DeltaSpike
> >> actually - a library of BV constraints
> >>>  > not
> >>>  > > > > > branded
> >>>  > > > > > > > by
> >>>  > > > > > > > > a
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > specific
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > impl.
> >> I've cc'd Emmanuel, spec lead for BV, to
> >>>  see
> >>>  > if
> >>>  > > > he
> >>>  > > > > > has
> >>>  > > > > > > > any
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > plans
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > such a
> >> thing.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>  What about the Seam s:validateForm? IMO it's
> >>>  a
> >>>  > > > simple
> >>>  > > > > > way
> >>>  > > > > > > > for
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > cross
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > field
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>  validation. Will this be added in future
> >>>  > > releases?
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is
> >> not actually a BV validator, but a JSF
> >>>  > > > > validator. I
> >>>  > > > > > > > know
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > Mark
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > working
on
> >> JSF stuff for DeltaSpike atm, perhaps
> >>>  > this
> >>>  > > > is
> >>>  > > > > > > > > something
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > Jason
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > could
add
> >> to that.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this
> >> something that belongs in DeltaSpike, or
> >>>  > should
> >>>  > > > it
> >>>  > > > > be
> >>>  > > > > > > in
> >>>  > > > > > > > a
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > JSF
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > component
> >> library? I know RichFaces has something
> >>>  > very
> >>>  > > > > > > similar, I
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > believe
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > PrimeFaces
does
> >> as well (haven't looked for a
> >>>  while)
> >>>  > > and
> >>>  > > > I
> >>>  > > > > > have
> >>>  > > > > > > > no
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > idea
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > about other
> >> component libraries.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>  How can i contribue to DeltaSpike? I could do
> >>>  > > some
> >>>  > > > > > > smaller
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > tasks
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>  problems.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>  I also implemented constraints like
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >> EqualsExpression("#{...}").
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> this
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>  could be useful for other users, too.
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > This page
> >> should help -
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >> http://deltaspike.staging.apache.org/deltaspike/community.html
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>  Best regards,
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>  Thomas
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason Porter
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> http://twitter.com/lightguardjp
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > Software
> >> Engineer
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > Open Source
> >> Advocate
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP key id:
> >> 926CCFF5
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP key
> >> available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > > > --
> >>>  > > > Lincoln Baxter, III
> >>>  > > > http://ocpsoft.org
> >>>  > > > "Simpler is better."
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>
> >>
>
>

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