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