[seam-dev] Extended validation constraints

[George Gastaldi]

That is nice. Will certainly require no need for JSoup knowledge for
the app developer on the API side. However there is also the option to
add attributes and supported protocols, so I think the attributes
should be a little better described.

2011/6/14 Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com>:
> I would just allow the user to specify a list of tags for the custom
> option.. i.e
>
> @SafeHtml(whitelist = custom, tags = ["b", "span", "pre", "div", "table",
> "tr", "td"])
>
> etc.
>
>
> On 14/06/11 07:22, George Gastaldi wrote:
>>
>> There is an issue though: Whitelists are created through the use of
>> Whiltelist class itself. It´s hard to extend this class (and
>> meaningless).
>> The best would be to specify  a WhilelistFactory class .
>>
>> What do u think ?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>> 2011/6/13 Gunnar Morling<gunnar.morling at googlemail.com>:
>>>
>>> +1 for renaming the constraint to @SafeHtml.
>>>
>>> Apart from that the pull request looks good to me and IMO we can
>>> include it in 4.2. The change doesn't modify anything of the HV
>>> internals, so there is no big risk about it.
>>>
>>> -- Gunnar
>>>
>>> 2011/6/13 Kevin Pollet<pollet.kevin at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> Answers inline.
>>>>
>>>> Le dimanche 12 juin 2011 à 20:22, Hardy Ferentschik a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> nice to see some new constraints :-)
>>>> Some more thoughts inline
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:31:14 +0200, Gunnar Morling
>>>> <gunnar.morling at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not totally sure what the right place for it would be, though. The
>>>> constraints we have in HV so far are independent from any application
>>>> layer. @WebSafe would be the first one specific to the web layer.
>>>>
>>>> IMO this is validator is not really application layer dependent, even
>>>> thought this is
>>>> obviously where it will be most useful. Personally I would find
>>>> something
>>>> like SafeHtml
>>>> better than @WebSafe. It would also tie the constraints less to a layer.
>>>> IMO it also communicates
>>>> its purpose better.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> I think that renaming the annotation will better communicates its
>>>> purpose.
>>>> WebSafe is general, SafeHtml sounds good to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it would also be a good idea to have a separate library
>>>> exclusively for custom constraints which could be used from everywhere
>>>> ("HV Commons" or similar).
>>>>
>>>> I think it is to early think about a new module/library. As said, I
>>>> don't
>>>> see this constraints
>>>> necessarily tied to a layer and without at least a couple of concrete
>>>> layer specific constraints I
>>>> think we should wait.
>>>> I'm not sure to understand.
>>>> Why a new module could be created?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We already have a CR for 4.2. If we decide to add @WebSafe to HV do
>>>> you think we should add this in 4.2 or to the next release?
>>>>
>>>> My initial feeling is to wait for the next release, but I don't feel to
>>>> strongly about this.
>>>> However, -1 for a new library/module and +1 for a rename of the
>>>> constraint.
>>>>
>>>> --Hardy
>>>>
>>>> Like Hardy my initial feeling is to wait for the next release but the
>>>> pull
>>>> request is
>>>> opened and it will not be very hard to integrate it in master :-) I've
>>>> no strong
>>>> opinion about this.
>>>>
>>>> --Kevin
>
>