Can't apply the patch, see comment on ticket.
Jörn
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ticket #2908 created and patch attached. Let me know if I should
> change anything.
>
> On May 19, 1:57 pm, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Just use "messages" for embedding messages as metadata. The odds of
>> adding a method "messages" are extremely low, and once its released,
>> I'll update the docs accordingly.
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > -> "Avoiding the conflict between a method "messages" and those actual
>> > messages should be easy enough. "
>>
>> > Should we plan on supporting a simulatanious "message" method and
>> > custom messages in metadata?
>>
>> > As stated, I'm still climbing the learning curve :). Before I
>> > implement this I just want to make sure your not envisioning a better
>> > way. The strait forward check I'm planning on is to see if validator
>> > has any "message" methods defined, if it does it will treat "messages"
>> > in meta as a rule method, else it will treat it as a custom message
>> > object. This check, however, means a dev can't simultaneously have a
>> > method named "message" and still use custom messages in metadata. A
>> > minor, but strange requirement. Is this ok?
>>
>> > I was trying to figure out a way to compare the message object in meta
>> > to the "message" rule signature. If the method sig matches it will be
>> > treated as rule metadata, else custom message metadata. Don't know if
>> > we can guarantee repeatable results with that since rule method sigs
>> > can match the custom message object in rare cases. Leaving us with an
>> > even more rare, but stranger requirement.
>>
>> > I'm probably missing something so i figured I'd just ask what you had
>> > in mind that was "easy enough".
>>
>> > Thanks
>>
>> > On May 16, 9:33 am, Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Ah, agreed. I'll make these changes and send in a ticket.
>>
>> >> On May 15, 4:20 pm, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > How about this?
>>
>> >> > meta: default
>> >> > class="{required:true,minlength:2,messages:{required:'Enter
>> >> > this!',minlength:'Way to short'}}"
>>
>> >> > meta: "validation"
>> >> > class="{validation:{required:true,minlength:2,messages:{required:'Enter
>> >> > this!',minlength:'Way to short'}}}"
>>
>> >> > No need to change the meta-option that way. The code reading the
>> >> > messages just checks for a messages-property within the metadata.
>> >> > Avoiding the conflict between a method "messages" and those actual
>> >> > messages should be easy enough.
>>
>> >> > Contributions are welcome in any format, a ticket on dev.jquery.com
>> >> > with a diff attached is the preferred way.
>>
>> >> > Jörn
>>
>> >> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Ok I have a first cut done. elements can now have metadata like:
>> >> > > <input id="cname" name="name" class="{rules:{required:true,minlength:
>> >> > > 2}, messages:{required:'Enter this!', minlength:'Way to short!'}}" />
>>
>> >> > > Quick question though. Which do you prefer?
>>
>> >> > > 1)$("#Form").validate({meta:"rules", metaMessages:"messages"});
>> >> > > 2)$("#Form").validate({meta:{rules:"rules", messages:"messages"}});
>>
>> >> > > I like 2, but it changes the existing API.
>>
>> >> > > How do you want the changes?
>>
>> >> > > On May 14, 1:04 pm, Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > >> Thanks for the help on getting started. I'd already started wading
>> >> > >> through the source so you definitely saved me some time. I'm not
>> >> > >> totally comfortable with Jquery yet but I'm getting there :). I'll
>> >> > >> give this a go and see what happens. Should I just reply to this
>> >> > >> thread to contribute/ask questions? or is there a better way?
>>
>> >> > >> On May 14, 12:07 pm, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> > It isn'T supported, yet. You could help getting it into the plugin
>> >> > >> > by
>> >> > >> > trying to implement it yourself, and contributing it back.
>>
>> >> > >> > To get started, take a look at the defaultMessage-method.
>> >> > >> > Currently it
>> >> > >> > looks for custom messages specified via options, then for the title
>> >> > >> > attribute, then for default messages. You can access metadata via
>> >> > >> > $(element).metadata().
>> >> > >> > To be able to throw rules and messages together, you'd use the
>> >> > >> > meta-option to "namespace" rules, eg.
>> >> > >> > class="{rules:{required:true,email:true}, messages: {required:"yo",
>> >> > >> > email:"no"}", then $(...).validate({ meta: "rules" })
>>
>> >> > >> > Hope this helps to get started.
>>
>> >> > >> > Jörn
>>
>> >> > >> > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> > > Hi,
>>
>> >> > >> > > I'm trying to build a web framework utilizing the great work
>> >> > >> > > thats
>> >> > >> > > already been done on the validation plugin. I'm trying to use
>> >> > >> > > metadata
>> >> > >> > > to specify my rules. I'm having a problem overriding the default
>> >> > >> > > messages for multiple rules via metadata. It appears as though
>> >> > >> > > I can
>> >> > >> > > only specify one generic message for all my rules on a given
>> >> > >> > > element
>> >> > >> > > using the title attribute.
>>
>> >> > >> > > Is there a way use metadata to override error messages that I'm
>> >> > >> > > overlooking? If not can this be added? Additionally, do we have
>> >> > >> > > to be
>> >> > >> > > restricted to using the title attribute? Could we use custom
>> >> > >> > > attributes? It seems like a common scenario and is supported by
>> >> > >> > > the
>> >> > >> > > validate(option) method.
>>
>> >> > >> > > Thanks for any direction/feedback on this!
>>
>> >> > >> > > Keep up the great work!
>> >> > >> >> Dane
>
