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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/9/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 1.4 port > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
