Home » Language IDEs » ServerTools (WTP) » validation API
|
Re: validation API [message #154291 is a reply to message #154130] |
Fri, 30 December 2005 05:55 |
David Williams Messages: 722 Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:22:39 -0500, Max Rydahl Andersen <max.andersen@jb=
oss.com> wrote:
> In other words, if I start using the wst.validation what are the most =
important things to be aware of
> besides being ready to migrate to a different package name in upcoming=
releases ?
>
Max, probably the most important thing is that some version of the API w=
ill
likely survive, but does need some re-work. Both for content type (curre=
ntly limited
to file extensions) and, most importantly for performance, will probably=
need to be re-cast to be more
"job aware". Validations currently are executed as part of the build-cyc=
le, which is not want
most people want. I suspect there will be some notion that validation pr=
oviders will need to
specify other jobs to be bracket constraints. For example, perhaps after=
a build job, but before a to-be-invented publish job?
So, code wise, I don't think there's much you can do in advance, and I'm=
not even sure if or when this changes might take place, but you might w=
ant to think through
your requirements in terms of Eclipse jobs, and open feature requests ac=
cordingly. For example, in
your case, you might want the ability to specify "this validation should=
follow the same scheduling rules as XML validtion"
(btw, the current performance problems are suspected to be due to indivi=
dual validators, and internet access ... not the framework as a whole ..=
.. though as a whole, does not fit will with the notion of jobs).
|
|
|
Re: validation API [message #154394 is a reply to message #154291] |
Sun, 01 January 2006 13:57 |
Max Rydahl Andersen Messages: 233 Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
ok - i'll try and use it and report back any issues i bump into.
/max
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:22:39 -0500, Max Rydahl Andersen
> <max.andersen@jboss.com> wrote:
>
>> In other words, if I start using the wst.validation what are the most
>> important things to be aware of
>> besides being ready to migrate to a different package name in upcoming
>> releases ?
>>
>
>
> Max, probably the most important thing is that some version of the API
> will
> likely survive, but does need some re-work. Both for content type
> (currently limited
> to file extensions) and, most importantly for performance, will probably
> need to be re-cast to be more
> "job aware". Validations currently are executed as part of the
> build-cycle, which is not want
> most people want. I suspect there will be some notion that validation
> providers will need to
> specify other jobs to be bracket constraints. For example, perhaps after
> a build job, but before a to-be-invented publish job?
>
> So, code wise, I don't think there's much you can do in advance, and I'm
> not even sure if or when this changes might take place, but you might
> want to think through
> your requirements in terms of Eclipse jobs, and open feature requests
> accordingly. For example, in
> your case, you might want the ability to specify "this validation should
> follow the same scheduling rules as XML validtion"
>
> (btw, the current performance problems are suspected to be due to
> individual validators, and internet access ... not the framework as a
> whole ... though as a whole, does not fit will with the notion of jobs).
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Mar 28 13:28:30 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02883 seconds
|