jvalid-devel — Java Validation Library Developers

Re: [Jvalid-devel] User defined messaging?

[Brett M. <br...@ne...>]

> >> Thought I should post this to the list since we have some new blood :)
> >> BTW, Welcome Brett!
> >
> >
> > Hey there... couldn't not at least see what came of my articles ;-)
>
> Hope you like what you see so far :)  And if you want commit access to
> the repository just say the word and your in!

Cool, and thanks. I'll let you know. For now, I'll just throw in my opinions
here and there, as I'm swamped, but if things loosen up, I'll be hopping in
with more time. Darn those full-time jobs ;-)

<snip />
> >
> > A couple of thoughts. First, it would make more sense to me to include
the
> > message element more closely with the constraint involved. This actually
> > brings up something I've been thinking about: since we're now to the
point
> > of defining elements, and not just using the XML Schema ones, it might
make
> > sense to define a 'constraint' element that is the baseType for all
> > constraints. Then you might have something like this:
> >
> > <attribute name="orderDate">
> >   <jvalid:constraint uiName="Order Date" baseType="date">
> >     <jvalid:minInclusive value="2/28/2001">
> >         <errorMessage>The value ${value} is less than the minimum
allowed
> > value ${minInclusive} for ${uiName}</errorMessage>
> >     </jvalid:minInclusive>
> >   </jvalid:constraint>
> > </attribute>
> >
> > Something like that... so jvalid:constraint would extend XML Schema's
> > constraint element, jvalid:minInclusive would extend XML Schema's
> > minInclusive, etc. That sort of consolidates the UI Name with the name
of
> > the element/attribute, which makes more sense to me. It also allows the
> > error message to be a part of the constraint, which also rings truer.
> >
> > My 2 cents ;-) Whatcha think?
> >
> > -Brett
>
> I like!  It does make much more sense this way.  My idea was basically
> conceived as it was written.., usually not a very good idea.., but, can
> spark some lively and productive discussions :)  Note to self.., think
> before posting! :)

Hey, I don't follow that rule myself... just happens that I've been thinking
about this topic since before I wrote the first article, so I've got a few
months head start. I like the idea though... I'll watch the impl and see if
I can continue to be of some help.

-Brett

>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jvalid-devel mailing list
> Jva...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jvalid-devel

Re: [Jvalid-devel] User defined messaging?

[Mike W. <mik...@st...>]

Brett McLaughlin wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Williams" <mik...@st...>
> To: <jva...@li...>
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 8:38 PM
> Subject: [Jvalid-devel] User defined messaging?
> 
> 
> 
>> Thought I should post this to the list since we have some new blood :)
>> BTW, Welcome Brett!
> 
> 
> Hey there... couldn't not at least see what came of my articles ;-)

Hope you like what you see so far :)  And if you want commit access to 
the repository just say the word and your in!

> 
> 
>> Mark and I were discussing ways of adding user defined messagging to
>> JValid.  Here is one idea that sounds like it would work.  Feed back is
>> welcome!
> 
> 
> I'll give you what I can. I may be a little loopy... I'm in my normal frenzy
> this time of year, as its the Stanley Cup Playoffs, and my Dallas Stars are
> on tonight ;-)

Good luck :)

> 
> 
>> Here is the proposed change to the xml.  The new attributes are
>> friendlyName, minInclusiveMessage and maxInclusiveMessage.  There would
>> be a matching ??Message attribute for each possible validation error.
>> The strings enclosed in {{ }} would be replaced at runtime with the
>> appropriate values.
>> 
>> <attribute name="orderDate">
>>      <simpleType baseType="date">
>>          <minInclusive value="2/28/2001" />
>>          <maxInclusive value="5/28/2001" />
>>      </simpleType>
>>      <friendlyName value="Order Date" />
>>      <minInclusiveMessage value="The value {{value}} is less than the
>> minimum allowed value {{minInclusive}} for {{friendlyName}}." />
>>      <maxInclusiveMessage value="The value {{value}} is greater than the
>>   maximum allowed value {{maxInclusive}} for {{friendlyName}}." />
>> </attribute>
> 
> 
> A couple of thoughts. First, it would make more sense to me to include the
> message element more closely with the constraint involved. This actually
> brings up something I've been thinking about: since we're now to the point
> of defining elements, and not just using the XML Schema ones, it might make
> sense to define a 'constraint' element that is the baseType for all
> constraints. Then you might have something like this:
> 
> <attribute name="orderDate">
>   <jvalid:constraint uiName="Order Date" baseType="date">
>     <jvalid:minInclusive value="2/28/2001">
>         <errorMessage>The value ${value} is less than the minimum allowed
> value ${minInclusive} for ${uiName}</errorMessage>
>     </jvalid:minInclusive>
>   </jvalid:constraint>
> </attribute>
> 
> Something like that... so jvalid:constraint would extend XML Schema's
> constraint element, jvalid:minInclusive would extend XML Schema's
> minInclusive, etc. That sort of consolidates the UI Name with the name of
> the element/attribute, which makes more sense to me. It also allows the
> error message to be a part of the constraint, which also rings truer.
> 
> My 2 cents ;-) Whatcha think?
> 
> -Brett

I like!  It does make much more sense this way.  My idea was basically 
conceived as it was written.., usually not a very good idea.., but, can 
spark some lively and productive discussions :)  Note to self.., think 
before posting! :)

Mike

Re: [Jvalid-devel] User defined messaging?

[Brett M. <br...@ne...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Williams" <mik...@st...>
To: <jva...@li...>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 8:38 PM
Subject: [Jvalid-devel] User defined messaging?


> Thought I should post this to the list since we have some new blood :)
> BTW, Welcome Brett!

Hey there... couldn't not at least see what came of my articles ;-)

>
> Mark and I were discussing ways of adding user defined messagging to
> JValid.  Here is one idea that sounds like it would work.  Feed back is
> welcome!

I'll give you what I can. I may be a little loopy... I'm in my normal frenzy
this time of year, as its the Stanley Cup Playoffs, and my Dallas Stars are
on tonight ;-)

>
> Here is the proposed change to the xml.  The new attributes are
> friendlyName, minInclusiveMessage and maxInclusiveMessage.  There would
> be a matching ??Message attribute for each possible validation error.
> The strings enclosed in {{ }} would be replaced at runtime with the
> appropriate values.
>
> <attribute name="orderDate">
>      <simpleType baseType="date">
>          <minInclusive value="2/28/2001" />
>          <maxInclusive value="5/28/2001" />
>      </simpleType>
>      <friendlyName value="Order Date" />
>      <minInclusiveMessage value="The value {{value}} is less than the
> minimum allowed value {{minInclusive}} for {{friendlyName}}." />
>      <maxInclusiveMessage value="The value {{value}} is greater than the
>   maximum allowed value {{maxInclusive}} for {{friendlyName}}." />
> </attribute>

A couple of thoughts. First, it would make more sense to me to include the
message element more closely with the constraint involved. This actually
brings up something I've been thinking about: since we're now to the point
of defining elements, and not just using the XML Schema ones, it might make
sense to define a 'constraint' element that is the baseType for all
constraints. Then you might have something like this:

<attribute name="orderDate">
  <jvalid:constraint uiName="Order Date" baseType="date">
    <jvalid:minInclusive value="2/28/2001">
        <errorMessage>The value ${value} is less than the minimum allowed
value ${minInclusive} for ${uiName}</errorMessage>
    </jvalid:minInclusive>
  </jvalid:constraint>
</attribute>

Something like that... so jvalid:constraint would extend XML Schema's
constraint element, jvalid:minInclusive would extend XML Schema's
minInclusive, etc. That sort of consolidates the UI Name with the name of
the element/attribute, which makes more sense to me. It also allows the
error message to be a part of the constraint, which also rings truer.

My 2 cents ;-) Whatcha think?

-Brett
>
> --
>
>
> ----------------------------
> Mike Williams
> mik...@st...
> http://www.mikesbox.com
> ----------------------------
> May the Source be with you!
> ----------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jvalid-devel mailing list
> Jva...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jvalid-devel

[Jvalid-devel] User defined messaging?

[Mike W. <mik...@st...>]

Thought I should post this to the list since we have some new blood :) 
BTW, Welcome Brett!

Mark and I were discussing ways of adding user defined messagging to 
JValid.  Here is one idea that sounds like it would work.  Feed back is 
welcome!

Here is the proposed change to the xml.  The new attributes are 
friendlyName, minInclusiveMessage and maxInclusiveMessage.  There would 
be a matching ??Message attribute for each possible validation error. 
The strings enclosed in {{ }} would be replaced at runtime with the 
appropriate values.

<attribute name="orderDate">
     <simpleType baseType="date">
         <minInclusive value="2/28/2001" />
         <maxInclusive value="5/28/2001" />
     </simpleType>
     <friendlyName value="Order Date" />
     <minInclusiveMessage value="The value {{value}} is less than the 
minimum allowed value {{minInclusive}} for {{friendlyName}}." />
     <maxInclusiveMessage value="The value {{value}} is greater than the
  maximum allowed value {{maxInclusive}} for {{friendlyName}}." />
</attribute>

-- 


----------------------------
Mike Williams
mik...@st...
http://www.mikesbox.com
----------------------------
May the Source be with you!
----------------------------

[Jvalid-devel] Testing the list.

[Mike W. <mik...@st...>]

Just testing the list.  I sent a message to it yesterday and it didn't 
seem to go through :(

-- 


----------------------------
Mike Williams
mik...@st...
http://www.mikesbox.com
----------------------------
May the Source be with you!
----------------------------

[Jvalid-devel] Retrieving native values.

[Mike W. <mik...@st...>]

I think I may have a solution that I want to bounce off you.

We could provide two methods of validation.  The current one validate( 
"<Contraint_Name>", value ) and one more that will return an object 
representing the native value.

The second method would take the same parameters as validate but would 
return an object.  The returned object would be one of the native 
wrapper classes or in the case of a date an instance of the Date class.  
An exception would be thrown if the value fails the validation.  The 
exception would provide a getErrorList method that will return the 
normal List of errors.  If you simply called getMessage() it would 
collect all the errors in the list and return them as a string.

I believe this would give us the best of both worlds!  Plus, my earlier 
reservations would be taken care of :)  We would still have a clean 
simple solution and it would be more flexible.  If all you care about is 
validation you call validate and check the ErrorList for errors.  If you 
want the value you call getObject( "<Contraint_Name>", value ), catch 
the exception and cast the returned object to your expected data type.

Here's an example (Probably need to come up with a better name for the 
Exception :)

try
{
   Date orderDate =  (Date) validator.getObject( "OrderDate", testDate );
   //-------------------------------
   // Data was valid so do something with it :)
   //-------------------------------
}
catch ( ScrewedUpDataException sud )
{
    List errorList = sud.getErrorList();
    //-----------------------
    // Do something with the errors.
    //-----------------------
}