Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
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.
Yupp! Are these validators etc. real avalon components?
Validators currently exist only for datatypes, and not yet for bindings (this is on my todo list).
yep, some nuance though:
there should be only one validation cycle! what I mean is:
- we probably do want to be able to express validation-rules by using some of the syntax we currently find in the binding file, that is based on the business-object models we want to manipulate
- however: I don't see a reason for specific validation that only kicks in when doing the save-binding (i.e. typically at the end of the use case) since that would defy the whole idea of having a woody-form-model that can validate *early* some user-input?
having said that I still think the validators are tied to datatypes, only some of those datatypes are to be retrieved or introspected from the business domain directly (and can be expressed as such, including business specific validation)
or am I missing something?
(maybe all of this is introduced by 'binding' being a bad name for what it currently is: it really just is run-time data-mapping, not design-time typing)
-marc=
Currently, only ValidatorBuilders are components and also on my todo list is applying to Woody the same pattern that allows TreeProcessor nodes to be components (validators must be able to access the object model, sources and any other component).
Sylvain
-- 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]
