Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Sylvain Wallez dijo:
Not a problem, since <wb:assert> is just a particular implementation of
Validator. So what about :
<wb:validate>
<wb:auto-validate-using-business-model/>
</wb:validate>
Hmm. At the first look it is great for people starting writing from now the beans! But, ... :(
I see a problem:
think in people that has already to many Beans? (This is not my case, but I think about other adopters that already had a good implemented Business model and what to use it with Cocoon).
Also other problem is that we will force people to write the validationXXX()?, verificationXXX?, checkXXX()? or checkDirtyXXX() function in a defined style. This sometimes is not good. The Modular database implementation require to write database sequences in a defined style. If you already has a database this is not easy to rewrite it to make use of the modular database style.
I am not trying to find or create a hair in the good taste soup. This are
only random thought. :)
I think you missed the real meaning of my post : since validators are pluggable, you can write you own and do whatever you want in it !
Cocoon should provide the most useful and generic implementations, but it does not lock with the provides implementations.
Sylvain
yep, totally agree here
that is what I meant when writing to Carsten about this kind of validation being dependend on the business object model (this is where I use the word 'arbitrary' so often)
since:
woody cannot impose a validation pattern on the business model
and the business model can't impose a validation pattern upon woody
(with validation pattern I mean: methodnames but also return-types or exception behavior)
conclusion:
you will need to hook this up yourself, but of course: woody will provide the hooks!
-marc= -- Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0116284/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
