Begin forwarded message:
From: Dan Allen <dan.j.allen@gmail.com>Date: 11 March 2009 15:19:09 GMTTo: Pete Muir <pmuir@bleepbleep.org.uk>Subject: Re: So what's left for 2.0?
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Andy Schwartz <andy.schwartz@oracle.com> wrote:
For consistency I think we want to move f:validateBean over to a wrapping strategy that is closer to f:ajax, but want to hear Dan's take on this. (Dan - I can help walk you through the f:ajax implementation if you have questions about this.)
I'm fine with this. It will take out some ambiguity and it aligns with <s:validateAll> which we have used in Seam. We should still support the validator nested within EditableValueHolder of course as an override, which is consistent with <f:ajax> too.
I think the next step is to define in text the override strategy. I can do this if you want me to move forward with it.
(The disable attribute on validator should be renamed to disabled or vice-versa for <f:ajax>; I like the verb better)
If we go with the nesting strategy, I want to move forward with my idea of making the branch validator a prototype that is cloned on to each child EditableValueHolder. That way we can support validators that are StateHolders (i.e., have properties like regex).
- The AjaxBehavior API still needs some cleanup in order to make it usable for programmatic cases (eg. need to add typesafe accessors)