[seam-dev] Extended validation constraints

[Shane Bryzak]

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