Mailing-List: contact dev-help@struts.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a0620070abdd683c1936f@[192.168.2.93]>
In-Reply-To: <014401c4d978$76445870$0200a8c0@DELL1800>
References: <a06200720bdd6393f1cc1@192.168.0.3>
 <20041203193738.40427.qmail@web50402.mail.yahoo.com>
 <16d6c620041203115960af2675@mail.gmail.com>
 <014401c4d978$76445870$0200a8c0@DELL1800>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:09:59 -0600
To: "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pemberton@blueyonder.co.uk>,
 "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>
From: Joe Germuska <Joe@Germuska.com>
Subject: Re: ActionForm.validateForm(...) to replace
 ActionForm.validate(...)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

At 8:41 PM +0000 12/3/04, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>Wouldn't it be better to get rid of this in 1.3 with the move to Chain?
>Doesn't everything get thrown up in the air and re-defined at that point
>including Action's being deprecated in favour of objects that just implement
>the Command interface?

I guess I had figured on 1.3 being more transitional than that.  But, 
even if one were to use a command instead of an action, we haven't 
talked (yet) about changing the validation model.

I haven't heard anyone propose a major change to the model of "Struts 
populates an ActionForm and calls a method on it which tests its 
validity and is able to return a bundle of messages explaining 
validation errors if there are any."  My preference would be to defer 
any changes that dramatic until 1.4, although with the chain, it 
would be a little easier for people to prototype those kinds in the 
sandbox or on SourceForge (or whereever...)

Perhaps it is worth trying to come up with a more future proof 
implementation, though.  This isn't a burning issue -- clearly people 
are confused about the ActionMessages/ActionErrors situation, but I 
think that's "under control."  By future-proof, I mean something that 
passes in the resources-equivalent of ActionMessages, and possibly 
which passes in something like a "ValidationContext" which would 
eliminate the explicit dependency on HttpServletRequest.

Joe


>Niall
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Martin Cooper" <mfncooper@gmail.com>
>To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>
>Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 7:59 PM
>Subject: Re: ActionForm.validateForm(...) to replace
>ActionForm.validate(...)
>
>
>>  We did just get Commons Resources promoted out of the sandbox, and I'm
>>  hopeful that we'll get that puppy released soon. Finally!
>>
>>  --
>>  Martin Cooper
>>
>>
>>  On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:37:38 -0800 (PST), David Graham
>>  <grahamdavid1980@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>  > We didn't do it earlier because we wanted to use commons-resources for
>>  > message passing.  That hasn't happened so we may as well add the
>>  > validateForm() method and deprecate validate().
>>  >
>>  > David
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > --- Joe Germuska <Joe@Germuska.com> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > > In order to push forward on full deprecation of ActionErrors, I
>>  > > propose adding the following method to ActionForm:
>>  > >
>>  > > public ActionMessages validateForm(ActionMapping mapping,
>>  > >                                                 HttpServletRequest
>request) {
>>  > >
>>  > >          return validate(mapping, request);
>>  > >
>>  > >      }
>>  > >
>>  > > and then changing one line in the Request Processing chain:
>>  > >
>>  > >          ActionMessages errors = form.validate(mapping, request);
>>  > > to
>>  > >          ActionMessages errors = form.validateForm(mapping, request);
>>  > >
>>  > > I'm not sure now why we haven't done this earlier.  Someone suggested
>>  > > it on one of the lists a while ago and it seemed clear once I saw it,
>>  > > but I haven't had time to do anything about it.
>>  > >
>>  > > My inclination is to do this only on the 1.3 (HEAD) branch, and to
>>  > > make the change in RequestProcessor.java even though it is slated for
>>  > > obsolescence, and then also to make the change in
>>  > > o.a.s.chain.AbstractValidateActionForm (which actually still uses
>>  > > ActionErrors, actually.)
>>  > >
>>  > > If it didn't seem strange that it hasn't been done already, I might
>>  > > have just gone ahead and done it without raising the question -- so
>>  > > I'm wondering if I'm missing something?
>>  > >
>>  > > Joe
>>  > >
>>  > > --
>>  > > Joe Germuska
>>  > > Joe@Germuska.com
>>  > > http://blog.germuska.com
>>  > > "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction"  -The Ex
>>  > >
>>  > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>  > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>  > > >
>>  > >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > __________________________________________________
>>  > Do You Yahoo!?
>>  > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>  > http://mail.yahoo.com
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>  > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org


-- 
Joe Germuska            
Joe@Germuska.com  
http://blog.germuska.com    
"Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction"  -The Ex

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