You just added some sunshine to my day ;)
Eelco
On 9/11/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes wiki overlord that was already on my todo list :)
>
> -Igor
>
>
>
> On 9/11/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > +1 too. When you're done, could you please write a few lines
yes wiki overlord that was already on my todo list :)-IgorOn 9/11/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:+1 too. When you're done, could you please write a few lines on
http://www.wicket-wiki.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Migrate-2.0 ?EelcoOn 9/11/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> fin
+1 too. When you're done, could you please write a few lines on
http://www.wicket-wiki.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Migrate-2.0 ?
Eelco
On 9/11/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fine by me
>
>
> On 9/11/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> oh yeah, i also want to move iva
fine by meOn 9/11/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
oh yeah, i also want to move ivalidator and friends out of wicket.markup.html.form.validation into wicket.validation, anyone against? 2.0 only of course.-Igor
On 9/11/06,
Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
first pass of this is
oh yeah, i also want to move ivalidator and friends out of wicket.markup.html.form.validation into wicket.validation, anyone against? 2.0 only of course.-IgorOn 9/11/06,
Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
first pass of this is in svn, so now is the time to look over it and complain about som
first pass of this is in svn, so now is the time to look over it and complain about something.the javadoc is not finished but it is coming tomorrow morning so no need to complain about that just yet.it feels so good to finish the day at 1am working on wicket! no joke, havent had the chance to do th
the default wont be that simplethe default has to hold a list of keys and an arg map.-IgorOn 9/8/06, Johan Compagner <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:We can make one default implementation which is then used in 99% of the cases internally (and by others) i guess
i was just wondering why it was an interf
We can make one default implementation which is then used in 99% of the cases internally (and by others) i guess i was just wondering why it was an interface. Because it seems to me like a very simple class (a wrapper around a string)
johanOn 9/8/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i guess
i guess for the usecase i have in a few places the error message would be generated form the service layer as a string - no interpolation/resource lookup. that would be hard to express, if we have IValidationError i can implement a simple StringError that just takes a string and returns it in getme
Is IValidationError really needed?Can't that be a normal class what would the interface really give us?johanOn 9/7/06, Igor Vaynberg <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:ok, so
IValidatable { T getValue(); error(IValidationError error); }IValidationError { String getMessage(ILocalizer localizer); }ILocal
class MaxStringLenValidator implements IValidator { private final int maxlen; public void boolean validate(IValidatable validatable) { if (!Strings.isEmpty(validatable.getValue
())&&validatable.getValue().length>maxlen) { ValidationError error=new ValidationError(MaxStri
Could you give an example of how you would use it/ how does this play
together with IValidator?
Eelco
On 9/7/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ok, so
>
> IValidatable { T getValue(); error(IValidationError error); }
>
> IValidationError { String getMessage(ILocalizer localizer);
ok, soIValidatable { T getValue(); error(IValidationError error); }IValidationError { String getMessage(ILocalizer localizer); }ILocalizer { String getMessage(String key); String getMessage(String key, Map params);//not sure if need to have one that also takes params but would be nice
}advan
that sounds reasonable, context is the standard term that all the other validation frameworks use so i figured it would be familiar to people.-IgorOn 9/6/06,
Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yeah. i dislike the word 'context' in general because it rarelyseems to add anything intuitive.
yeah. i dislike the word 'context' in general because it rarely
seems to add anything intuitive. what about just IValidatable?
something that is validatable can be validated by a validator.
that makes more sense to me.
igor.vaynberg wrote:
>
> actually i18n comes into play so i think i would
On 9/6/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ahh so you do want to change all our validators and all the validators that are currently written by others:So you want to change void validate(final FormComponent component);
tovoid validate(final ValidationContext component);exactly
Ok but if
wasn't there talk about a common validation framework?i think it ended up being just that - talk :)start it up again ;)Everybody start the vote:
[X] Igor leading common validation framework[ ] can't choose anything else.
you can do what you want now also pretty easy.Only one extra adapterclass inb
On 9/5/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
wasn't there talk about a common validation framework?i think it ended up being just that - talk :)
you can do what you want now also pretty easy.Only one extra adapterclass inbetween:FormComponent.add(new ServiceLayerValidator(new ZipcodeValid
wasn't there talk about a common validation framework?you can do what you want now also pretty easy.Only one extra adapterclass inbetween:FormComponent.add(new ServiceLayerValidator(new ZipcodeValidator()));
But some general change/addition into form component is fine by me(i do like that second ap
actually i18n comes into play so i think i would likevoid error(String key, Map params)-IgorOn 9/5/06, Igor Vaynberg <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:yeah, that makes sense to me.IValidationContext
FormComponent.getValidationContext() {return new IValidationContext() { T getValue() { return getConver
basically what i want to do is to have a validation lib that i can use for wicket and /inside/ my service layer.right now i cannot reuse wicket validators because they are tightly bound to form components. if we decouple IValidator from FormComponent via some context interface i can take a StringVa
yeah, that makes sense to me.IValidationContext FormComponent.getValidationContext() {return new IValidationContext() { T getValue() { return getConvertedInput(); } void error(String s) { FormComponent.this.error
(s); }}}-IgorOn 9/5/06, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the list and m
the list and map look like implementation details to me.
isn't the component itself the validation context? so something more like:
IValidationContext
{
T getValue();
void error(String);
}
then an adaptor class connects the two methods to the component.
jon
igor.vaynberg wrote:
But you want to sent the FormComponent instances to the service layer? Is the service layer always on the same machine?
(if that is seperated like 1 or more Web servers that handle http load and one service server that does the db handling and so on) you have a problemwhen sending over the formcom
On 9/5/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hmm i am not to happy with yet another getValueXXX method on FormComponent. We should clean that up!So i would map to an existing method (i guess getConvertedValue())thats fine - i just thought
IValidationContext.getConvertedValue() sounds a bi
hmm i am not to happy with yet another getValueXXX method on FormComponent. We should clean that up!So i would map to an existing method (i guess getConvertedValue())But you want to sent the FormComponent instances to the service layer? Is the service layer always on the same machine?
(if that is s
i am working on an app that uses wicket and remoting, so i need to
do validation in wicket and in the business layer. the problem is that
our validators do not translate well into the business layer, and i
hate to write them twice. i can do all the validation in the service
layer, but then it is no
27 matches
Mail list logo
