Hi Sam -- I, for one, vote that Jesse's extended message is better... The more meaningful detail that can be provided the better. This is especially true because it is the default message. The first 'user' to see this message is the developer. This developer may be in the middle of pulling their hair out over some other issue and the last thing they need from their framework is "Your input is wrong but guess what I am not going to give you a clue on what is the right format (and you can't make me!)".
Please, Please, don't be cryptic! +1 for new extended default messages! It is worth wading through a sea of PMs to save development stress. This is why I like HLS and Tapestry. ... No (mostly no) cryptic error messages! -Pat On 12/1/06, Sam Gendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given that the messages CAN be overridden, I'd like to register a vote for keeping very simple messages as the default (since I tend to use them as is) and letting individual users override them as necessary. Also, keeping the messages unchanged would aid those of us who will have to port applications to 4.1 at some point. It seems like a change which isn't _necessary_ and since I use the default message in many cases, I'd actually have to go and override the default message throughout my app when I port it (either that, or get PM to buy into the new text, which would take about 10 times as long). Given that 4.1 isn't _supposed_ to have major upgrade incompatibilities (at least, I'd assume so given the similarity in version number), it'd be nice to keep the messages the same unless absolutely necessary. --sam On 12/1/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *meekly raises hand.. > > I think my original intention was to change some of the default error > messages to give more specific information about the format that we > want the input to be in. Rather than just saying "your input sucks, > try again" and having them randomly type stuff in until they get it > right. > > Perhaps the messages need to be looked at a little more closely on an > individual basis, or ideally find some way to translate "#" type > number format patterns into a more human friendly message ? > > On 11/29/06, Kevin Menard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is there any particular reason why the number format message in the > > number validator changed in 4.1? It used to be: > > > > "<Field> must be a numeric value." > > > > And now is: > > > > "<Field> must be a numeric value. Format is #." > > > > It's not clear to me that adding this format message is going to be > > beneficial to any of our end users. I'm guessing there's a good reason > > it was added though. I'm just trying to figure out what it may be. > > > > Thanks, > > Kevin > > > > -- > > Kevin Menard > > Servprise International > > WebReboot -- Remote Reboot Without Pulling the Plug > > 800.832.3823 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Jesse Kuhnert > Tapestry/Dojo/(and a dash of TestNG), team member/developer > > Open source based consulting work centered around > dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
