[seam-dev] Extended validation constraints

[George Gastaldi]

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
>