<> I've done the same myself.
The alternate version keys on the path instead of name attribute.
We should probably call it the DynaPathValidatorForm or something to
make the difference more clear.
-Ted.
On 4/7/06, Eric Rank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Ted.
>
> After sitting with it for
Thanks Ted.
After sitting with it for a while longer, I realized that with my
configuration, my dynaform needed to be of type:
org.apache.struts.validator.DynaValidatorForm
rather than
org.apache.struts.validator.DynaValidatorActionForm
There were a few other creases, but the above seemed to b
The required validator would need to be registered, as usual. But the
rest seems OK.
If it were me, I'd try deploying the "simplied" version as its own
application, and seeing if that works.
-Ted.
On 4/7/06, Eric Rank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted,
>
> Thanks for responding. In my real code,
HTH, Ted.
>
>
> On 4/7/06, Eric Rank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm attempting to use the Validation framework to validate a Dynaform,
> > and it doesn't seem to be working. I've done a bit of googling, but
> >
se the Validation framework to validate a Dynaform,
> and it doesn't seem to be working. I've done a bit of googling, but
> haven't been able to dig up anything definitive about validating
> dynaforms. Now, I'm looking for your collective help.
>
> Running the following c
Hi All,
I'm attempting to use the Validation framework to validate a Dynaform,
and it doesn't seem to be working. I've done a bit of googling, but
haven't been able to dig up anything definitive about validating
dynaforms. Now, I'm looking for your collective help.
R
6 matches
Mail list logo
