Re: [Webwork-devel] Validation on commands?

[<Jim...@do...>]

-1
I'm against hardcoding validation on every command action=20
indescriminately. But then again, I'm against hardcoding validation check=20
in doExecute. From a practical standpoint, many of us who use the=20
CommandDriven design, do so in order to "setup" a page. This is a very=20
common step with no need for validation. Putting an extraneous check in=20
these cases does not feel like good design.

I think the action designer can choose to call doValidation (or validate)=20
when they feel it is appropriate. If they want the blanket validation, it=20
is trivial to add to an ActionSupport subclass, however if it is embedded=20
as the default behavior, then the options narrow.=20

jim





Rickard <ri...@mi...>
Sent by: web...@li...
03/11/2002 04:24 AM

=20
        To:     WebWork Development <web...@li...>
        cc:=20
        Subject:        [Webwork-devel] Validation on commands?


Hey

What was the result of our discussions re: validating data on commands=20
as well? I recall that we said that it would be a good idea to call=20
validation() regardless of whether doExecute() or a command was to be=20
invoked.

That's ok, but then all examples break since validation is called before=20
  doDefault() is invoked. So, either the examples has to be updated so=20
that the validation rules are surrounded with
if (!isCommand("default"))
{
..
}

or, we could special-case the validation so that it's not done before=20
executing "default" but it's done on all other commands.

What say ye?

/Rickard

--=20
Rickard =D6berg
Author of "Mastering RMI"
Chief Architect, TheServerSide.com
   The Middleware Company - We Build Experts!


=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
Webwork-devel mailing list
Web...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel