tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Howard Lewis Ship" <hls...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: T5:
Date Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:20:58 GMT
What does the API for a connection look like?

So ... you want to iterate over all the pages of the applilcation, and
over all the components of those pages, looking for a specific type of
component?

Interestingly, that's now much more possible than in T4.  The caseless
URL stuff works by building a master index of all the page and
component classes at startup, this could give us the ability to
identify the names of all the pages (or anyway, all the potential
pages).

I'd appreciate more information, however. If this can be identified as
a valid and universal use case, it may be possible to let the
framework do the heavy lifting, by providing a way to annotate the
methods of the components that need to be referenced.

One of my many goals for T5 is to ensure that Tapestry doesn't get in your way.

On 1/29/07, Mark Stang <mstang@pingidentity.com> wrote:
> Howard, et. al.,
> I am not quite sure how to request this.  In Tapestry 3.0x, I don't use the Tapestry
Validation.  I create what we call a connection.  At times, I need to, programmatically, check
the connection for errors.  I do this by asking all of the parts of a component if they have
any errors.  The problem with validators has been that they only get called by Tapestry. 
How could I tell Tapestry to walk all of my pages/components and validate them?  Which brings
up the issue of they don't exist except in pools until they are displayed.  So, the only way
to "activate" them is to display every page and have it rendered.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> thanks,
>
> Mark
>
> Mark J. Stang
> Senior Engineer/Architect
> office: +1 303.468.2900
> mobile: +1 303.507.2833
> Ping Identity
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Lewis Ship [mailto:hlship@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sun 1/28/2007 10:18 PM
> To: Tapestry development
> Subject: Re: T5:
>
> On 1/28/07, Ted Steen <ted.steen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is really nice to be able to do input validation declarative for
> > the simple, and most common case, and in onValidate() programmatically
> > perform the more complex validation.
> >
>
> And that is the intention!
>
> Also, the ability to just ask the Form to record errors simplifies the
> code signficantly. You almost never need to think about the
> ValidationTracker object (which is a persistent field of the Form
> component).
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> TWD Consulting, Inc.
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry
> Creator, Apache HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work.  http://howardlewisship.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
>
>


-- 
Howard M. Lewis Ship
TWD Consulting, Inc.
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry
Creator, Apache HiveMind

Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work.  http://howardlewisship.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org


Mime
View raw message