Hi Martin,
why not to implement your own Field and fill it with the name and pass it into
recordError?
Jirka
Martin Grotzke napsal(a):
> Yes, I totally understand and it's of course very important that
> you do not change the API each time a user asks for it.
>
> The question in this case is then: why does the interface require
> a Field? It's only the Field's elementName that is used for the
> recordError functionality, so is it only for convenience, that
> recordError expects a Field, so that users do not have to do
> s.th. like recordError(_field.getElementName(), "foo")?
>
> Or is there another reason why recordError asks for a Field?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 10:54 -0700, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>> There's a long history in Tapestry of any time there's a hint of extra
>> API, people find a way to abuse it. So I'm being very, very
>> conservative!
>>
>> On 6/12/07, Martin Grotzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> And what are your concerns with an additional method
>>> recordError(String,String) on the ValidationTracker (and Form)?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:19 -0700, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>>>> I'm not familiar enough with Hibernate Validator to say.
>>>>
>>>> On 6/11/07, Martin Grotzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Howard,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 22:44 +0200, Martin Grotzke wrote:
>>>>>> Does this enable us to use hibernate validator in our business layer
>>>>>> that is completely independent from tapestry?
>>>>>> Hibernate validator is right now our favorite option for validation,
>>>>>> but it might be that we have to use an own implementation - we're still
>>>>>> evaluating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we're sure about is that in the business layer validation is
>>>>>> performed and that for each validation error details are provided
>>>>>> that should allow the presentation layer to map this information
>>>>>> to a specific field/element.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO a good solution for this use case is recording the error with
>>>>>> the element name, without being forced to have a Field for each
>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>> Do you have any comments/feedback concerning this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanx && cheers,
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 12:48 -0700, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>>>>>>> That's true ... though I expect to make Tapestry smarter about
>>>>>>> recognizing the Hibernate annotations and producing automatic client-
>>>>>>> and server-side validation for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/9/07, Martin Grotzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> We want to do validation in the business layer (with hibernate
>>>>>>>> validator) and get back an exception with a list of invalid values,
>>>>>>>> where each invalid value provides the property path.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then we want to have a mapping of the property path to the element
>>>>>>>> name and record an error for this on the tapestry form.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The value is to be able to use hibernate validator in our business
>>>>>>>> layer and not to be forced to define each Field in the page class,
>>>>>>>> which is better in terms of performance and saves unnecessary work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 10:07 -0700, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I don't see the value ... how would you obtain the element name
>>>>>>>>> without getting the field itself; and if you've injected the field (to
>>>>>>>>> invoke getElementName() ), then why wouldn't you just pass the field
>>>>>>>>> to the tracker?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Convince me there's something actually missing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/07, Martin Grotzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> right now there's a recordError(Field,String) method for storing
>>>>>>>>>> errors for elements of the page.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We would like to have also a method recordError(String,String) where
>>>>>>>>>> the first parameter is the element name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The ValidationTrackerImpl seems to use only the elementName of the
>>>>>>>>>> Field:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> private FieldTracker get(Field field)
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> String key = field.getElementName();
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> refreshFieldToTracker();
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FieldTracker result = InternalUtils.get(_fieldToTracker,
>>>>>>>>>> key);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if (result == null)
>>>>>>>>>> result = new FieldTracker(key);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> return result;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so an additional method seems to be not a big issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would this be possible to add to T5? Shall we submit a patch for this
>>>>>>>>>> here in the list or enter an issue?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanx && cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Martin Grotzke
>>>>>>>>>> Dipl.-Inf.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> freiheit.com technologies gmbh
>>>>>>>>>> Straßenbahnring 22 / 20251 Hamburg, Germany
>>>>>>>>>> fon +49 (0)40 / 890584-0
>>>>>>>>>> fax +49 (0)40 / 890584-20
>>>>>>>>>> HRB Hamburg 70814
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> eb0e 645c 9730 c8a3 ee2f 1b9a 5de5 21cb c259 fe34
>>>>>>>>>> Geschäftsführer: Claudia Dietze, Stefan Richter, Jörg Kirchhof
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Martin Grotzke
>>>>>>>> http://www.javakaffee.de/blog/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Martin Grotzke
>>>>> http://www.javakaffee.de/blog/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin Grotzke
>>> http://www.javakaffee.de/blog/
>>>
>>>
>>
--
Jiří Mareš (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
ČSAD SVT Praha, s.r.o. (http://www.svt.cz)
Czech Republic
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
