Being a former DBA I would wonder if this design would adhere to First Normal Second Normal Third Normal
In other words if the Data lives in 2 places what happens when one data item is updated but the 2nd data item is not updated and the representation of data is for the moment out of synch
Something to think about,
Thanks, Martin Gainty
______________________________________________ (mobile) 617-852-7822 (http)www.laconiadatasystems.com
From: "Rooney.Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <user@struts.apache.org>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <user@struts.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Validation Strategies?
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:04:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from mail.apache.org ([209.237.227.199]) by mc5-f36.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:05:13 -0800
Received: (qmail 95345 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2005 13:05:00 -0000
Received: (qmail 95324 invoked by uid 99); 14 Feb 2005 13:05:00 -0000
Received: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from ndmz1s1.cic.gc.ca (HELO ndmz1s1.cic.gc.ca) (205.194.127.67) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:05:00 -0800
Received: From njes1s1004.ci.gc.ca ([10.24.216.53]) by ndmz1s1.cic.gc.ca (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.345);id 1108386182296; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:03:02 -0500
Received: from njes1s1007.ci.gc.ca ([10.33.96.27]) by njes1s1004.ci.gc.ca with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:04:57 -0500
Received: from NJES1S5003.nhq.ci.gc.ca ([10.24.216.152]) by njes1s1007.ci.gc.ca with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:04:57 -0500
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jFx3EF9Ew6t12v7o0PdBWQL7gFcHa35R2A=
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Post: <mailto:user@struts.apache.org>
List-Id: "Struts Users Mailing List" <user.struts.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list user@struts.apache.org
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0tests=
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Validation Strategies?
Thread-Index: AcUSlUIEZBONgi5FRHeCzWa2KGzYWgAABn+w
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2005 13:04:57.0196 (UTC) FILETIME=[C86D4AC0:01C51295]
X-Virus-Checked: Checked
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Vic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: February 14, 2005 8:01 AM > To: user@struts.apache.org > Subject: Re: Validation Strategies? > > > That is the struts way (and it makes it "secure") > .V
Vic,
OK, what form do these maps take - XML, properties files, etc.? Do you have an example?
BTW, we're not using DynaForms, and we have written our own classes to map values from the form beans to our domain models. This approach has worked OK, but as the system has grown I'm starting to see its limitations. Any thoughts on this?
Thanks!
Dave Rooney Secure Systems Development [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
