RE: [FormProc-developer] Integradata and FormProc working together

[Nick B. <ni...@co...>]

> Right now there is a single error message for each field because there
> is a single validator.  I can see the value in allowing error messages
> for each validator though.

Can you see the value of what I proposed earlier about Integradata rules? 
What do you think?

> As far as multiple validators I have checked in a class to CVS called
> FormValidatorGroup.  I have not yet added the configuration routines,
> but it is essentially a collection of FormValidators which must all be
> valid for a successful validation.  The FormValidatorGroup extends from
> AbstractFormValidator so it can be used in the same place as any other
> FormValidator.
> 
> I will add the configuration logic tomorrow.

Before you go and code up a solution, can we see a snippet of XML of what 
the config will look like in this case so we can comment? Just a request.

> Sincerely,
> Anthony Eden
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: for...@li...
>> [mailto:for...@li...]On Behalf Of
>> Nick Bauman
>> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:32 PM
>> To: for...@li...
>> Subject: Re: [FormProc-developer] Integradata and FormProc working
>> together
>>
>>
>> > This is a suggestion for future development.  I think it would be a
>> > 'nice-to-have' feature.
>> >
>> > I was looking at Nick Bauman's API and noticed that his RuleResult
>> > class holds the error message while FormProc's getMessage method is
>> > in the FormElement.
>>
>> Correct, and I know this is a problem with Integradata. However, my
>> thinking
>> is this:
>>
>> I like that Anthony has I18N error messages "built right in", which
>> Integradata doesn't have (right now). He does this by putting the
>> error message in the XML. But since the Rule knows why, how and when
>> it's field is
>> invalid, the Rule should return a specific result code, which
>> then is mapped
>> to subsequent I18N responses, either in a properties file in the
>> distro or in the XML. The point is, you shouldn't be forced to put the
>> error message in there if you don't want to.
>>
>> Also, Integradata will soon optionally autogenerate Javascript
>> validation functions for validation _on the front end_ too, which I
>> hope
>> Anthony's lib
>> will be able to adopt as well!
>>
>> This is where Integradata is going. If we can go there together, we
>> can leverage the strengths of choice, cohesiveness of each other's
>> parts and scale the maintainability appropriately: a win-win for both
>> FormProc and Integradata.
>>
>> > It looks to me like this design prevents FormProc from being able to
>> > implement multiple rules.
>>
>> If this is true, this is definitely a problem. Integradata does not
>> have this limitation. Your illustration of a valid case for having
>> multiple rules
>> per field is right on the money.
>>
>> > For example, I think it would be useful to be able to configure a
>> > field like this:
>> >
>> > <element name="postalcode">
>> >
>> >   <!-- Rule for making the field required -->
>> >   <validator type="rule">
>> >     <rule>org.formproc.example.RequiredRule</rule>
>> >     <error lang="en">This field is required</error>
>> >   </validator>
>> >
>> >   <!-- Rule for validating a Canadian Postal Code -->
>> >   <validator type="rule">
>> >     <rule>org.formproc.example.CanPostalCodeRule</rule>
>> >     <error lang="en">This is not a valid Canadian Postal
>> >     Code</error>
>> >   </validator>
>> >
>> >   <message lang="en">Please enter a valid postal code</message>
>> >
>> > </element>
>> >
>> >
>> > The first rule would be evaluated, and if the field is blank then
>> > the user would be given the "This field is required" message.  If
>> > the field is entered, but the postal code is invalid, then the
>> > second rule is evaluated and he/she would be presented with the
>> > invalid postal code message.
>> >
>> > It also seems logical to me that the error message would be a
>> > property of the validator for a particular field.
>> >
>> > This change might make porting/merging Nick's rules easier as well.
>>
>> Yup, agreed.
>>
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > -Kerry
>> >
>> > --
>> > Kerry Todyruik <ke...@to...>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > FormProc-developer mailing list
>> > For...@li...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/formproc-developer
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nick Bauman
>> Cortexity Development
>> Intellectual Process is more important than
>> Intellectual Property -- you'll see.
>> http://www.cortexity.com/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FormProc-developer mailing list
>> For...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/formproc-developer
>>
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FormProc-developer mailing list
> For...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/formproc-developer


-- 
Nick Bauman 
Cortexity Development
Intellectual Process is more important than
Intellectual Property -- you'll see.
http://www.cortexity.com/