royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: [Discussion] About validation
Date Mon, 02 Oct 2017 17:46:44 GMT
I didn't look at the Validation commit too closely because I saw commit
comments that it was work in progress and need refactoring into beads and
PAYG.  So work with Herbs and others to figure out a better implementation
that takes into account different validation implementations.  Although
I'd prefer that any refactoring for Validation happens before or after the
big rename.

Lately, I've been thinking that Core should be mostly interfaces and
relatively few concrete classes, and a pile of common utility functions,
so I agree that the actual Validators might be better off in another SWC.
It would be great if all implementations could share interfaces, if any
interfaces are needed. Maybe they just watch events.

My 2 cents,
-Alex

On 10/2/17, 2:38 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I notice Harbs was including one of the missing parts in Royale:
>Validation.
>
>So great, since that is something very needed to get 1.0 state.
>
>I'd want to understand about the implementation. I suppose is based on the
>Flex Validator implementation to use it in MXML. Is that right? When it's
>finished it would be something similar to what we had in old Flex SDK?
>
>I want as well to expose some thoughts as I started to saw it:
>
>1.- I see the code is inside "Core" project (inside utils folder) and not
>in a new "Validation" project. Is this something temporal? I was expecting
>this to be as others projects (i.e: Formatters) and be a PAYG piece.
>(don't
>know if this was already discussed)
>
>2.- Since Royale is strongly PAYG based my expectations in the future
>would
>be to have the old Flex sdk implementation and another completly different
>that IMHO had a more modern and better approach, and was what I end using.
>I'm talking about GDS Validation framework:
>
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>m%2Fgraniteds%2Fgraniteds%2Ftree%2Fmaster%2Fgranite-client-flex-advanced%2
>Fsrc%2Fmain%2Fflex%2Forg%2Fgranite%2Fvalidation&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf26e2f91
>bfd64050087b08d509797243%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
>25339574436323&sdata=f1kmFyuw6WHSgUJI%2F72gZGBH%2FhojiXQN7I3M7zLtFpk%3D&re
>served=0
>
>This GDS implementation used annotations (that in our case could be beads
>although I like annotations in AS3 Value Objects and I think we should not
>lose that since is very powerful)
>
>The main way of thinking here was to separate validation from the UI
>control used and be able to make validations in controller's method , for
>example before sending some Value Object to the server.
>
>Resuming: For me old Flex SDK validators are need for migration. New
>people
>would want new modern options, and I think this would be along other
>things
>what make a difference between Royale and competitors.
>
>Hope we could discuss this since I thing it's an important subject.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>-- 
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf26e2f91bfd64050087b08d509797243%7Cfa7b1b5
>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425339574436323&sdata=Gi1T4Hhu5EhJJ
>4h2scRqaEKAm%2FBphfseI0Ap87tKD%2FM%3D&reserved=0

Mime
View raw message