Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html, something like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?
I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I see are only for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch validation at all.

Hi Rui,

Yes it is possible to do it inline.
Something like:

<input jwcid="something@TextField" validators="validators:email">

You can see more examples in:

Although this link if for Tap3's ValidField, the validator and translator
attributes are available in TextField in Tap4.

Regards,

5/10/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html, something like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I see are only for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch validation at all.

<input jwcid="something@TextField" validators="validators:Email">

There are a few validators that come with Tapestry:
#validation.fields

You can also define your own via the configuration point
"".

Martin

Wed, 10 May 2006 02:22:07 +0300, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) com
wrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html, something like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I see are only
for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch validation at all.

5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html, something like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I see are only for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch validation at all.

You might not believe me, but I only saw the "validators" attribute now. And
I've been looking at that page for the past 2 hours.

5/10/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html, something like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I see are only
for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch validation at all.

Again, "Enjoy Web Development with Tapestry" (the pdf book about tap4)
covers validation in detail. I highly recommend it. See the Tap home
page for details.

5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
You might not believe me, but I only saw the "validators" attribute now. And
I've been looking at that page for the past 2 hours.

5/10/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html, something like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I see are only
for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch validation at all.

If anybody has doubts of what Sam is saying about this book
if anyone thinks it's just a book he, me, and a few others liked
Do make a search on this forum for quotes on this book it's not that old
and you will see the results!
Garanteed! It's a must have. ;-)

5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

Again, "Enjoy Web Development with Tapestry" (the pdf book about tap4)
covers validation in detail. I highly recommend it. See the Tap home
page for details.

--
5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
You might not believe me, but I only saw the "validators" attribute now
And
I've been looking at that page for the past 2 hours.

5/10/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of
validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html, something
like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I see are
only
for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch validation at
all.

More telling, I think, is the fact that the folks who answer questions
around here often reference it, and many of the folks asking questions
haven't read it yet. It certainly gave me a baseline of Tapestry
knowledge very rapidly. I still have a ton to learn, but it got me
started.

5/10/06, Pedro Viegas <pviegas (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
If anybody has doubts of what Sam is saying about this book
if anyone thinks it's just a book he, me, and a few others liked
Do make a search on this forum for quotes on this book it's not that old
and you will see the results!
Garanteed! It's a must have. ;-)

5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

Again, "Enjoy Web Development with Tapestry" (the pdf book about tap4)
covers validation in detail. I highly recommend it. See the Tap home
page for details.

--
5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
You might not believe me, but I only saw the "validators" attribute now.
And
I've been looking at that page for the past 2 hours.

5/10/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of
validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html, something
like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I see are
only
for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch validation at
all.

Well, first, you reference it as Kent's book. Most people come to Tapestry
because a project landed on their laps and they need to get up to speed
quickly. Referencing a book as "Kent's" is somewhat vague.

Second, most of the time we just want quick answers. I know I didnt need the
book, I just needed some help clearing a couple of specific doubts. When
we're looking for a quick answer, referencing the book is the same as saying
"go away". It sends the wrong vibe about the mailing list.

5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

More telling, I think, is the fact that the folks who answer questions
around here often reference it, and many of the folks asking questions
haven't read it yet. It certainly gave me a baseline of Tapestry
knowledge very rapidly. I still have a ton to learn, but it got me
started.

--
5/10/06, Pedro Viegas <pviegas (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
If anybody has doubts of what Sam is saying about this book
if anyone thinks it's just a book he, me, and a few others liked
Do make a search on this forum for quotes on this book it's not that
old
and you will see the results!
Garanteed! It's a must have. ;-)

5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

Again, "Enjoy Web Development with Tapestry" (the pdf book about tap4)
covers validation in detail. I highly recommend it. See the Tap home
page for details.

--
5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
You might not believe me, but I only saw the "validators" attribute
now.
And
I've been looking at that page for the past 2 hours.

5/10/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of
validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html,
something
like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I see
are
only
for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch validation at
all.

5/10/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
Well, first, you reference it as Kent's book. Most people come to Tapestry
because a project landed on their laps and they need to get up to speed
quickly. Referencing a book as "Kent's" is somewhat vague.

Second, most of the time we just want quick answers. I know I didnt need the
book, I just needed some help clearing a couple of specific doubts. When
we're looking for a quick answer, referencing the book is the same as saying
"go away". It sends the wrong vibe about the mailing list.

I hate to disagree, but when someone is asking about a significant and
complex piece of functionality which is amply documented elsewhere, I
think it is perfectly legitimate to point them at that documentation,
rather than typing all the documentation into an email. I brought up
Kent's book (which costs money, admittedly) only because I felt that
his coverage of validation was superior to the standard Tap4 docs, and
because you'd already gotten a link to the standard docs, so I wanted
to make sure you knew about both sources. I also included the full
title of the book and mentioned where to find a link to it. I don't
really know how I could have been friendlier about suggesting that you
read the docs before asking questions that are already easily answered
elsewhere. I didn't want to give you a quickie answer for fear that I
would either misinform you due to my own inexperience or that I might
fail to completely answer your question. Much easier to send you to
the source and get it right the first time.

5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

More telling, I think, is the fact that the folks who answer questions
around here often reference it, and many of the folks asking questions
haven't read it yet. It certainly gave me a baseline of Tapestry
knowledge very rapidly. I still have a ton to learn, but it got me
started.

--
5/10/06, Pedro Viegas <pviegas (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
If anybody has doubts of what Sam is saying about this book
if anyone thinks it's just a book he, me, and a few others liked
Do make a search on this forum for quotes on this book it's not that
old
and you will see the results!
Garanteed! It's a must have. ;-)

5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

Again, "Enjoy Web Development with Tapestry" (the pdf book about tap4)
covers validation in detail. I highly recommend it. See the Tap home
page for details.

--
5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
You might not believe me, but I only saw the "validators" attribute
now.
And
I've been looking at that page for the past 2 hours.

5/10/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of
validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html,
something
like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I see
are
only
for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch validation at
all.

I was not talking about specific cases, like my problem with validation
which was admittedly my fault.
What I want to say is that its not very friendly to send the URL of a book.
It gives the impression that "I dont care". Sometimes, all we need is a
holding hand.

Dont want to start a flame war, but the folks over at the Wicket mailing
list dont seem to be bothered with answering any and all questions. Granted,
there are no books about Wicket, the framework is you and they want to draw
developers. But the atmosphere is lighter. At least I feel more comfortable
there.

again, these are my views. Dont take this personally or as an attack on
the framework. I love Tapestry and it is working up to what I expected it to
be.

5/11/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

5/10/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
Well, first, you reference it as Kent's book. Most people come to
Tapestry
because a project landed on their laps and they need to get up to speed
quickly. Referencing a book as "Kent's" is somewhat vague.

Second, most of the time we just want quick answers. I know I didnt need
the
book, I just needed some help clearing a couple of specific doubts. When
we're looking for a quick answer, referencing the book is the same as
saying
"go away". It sends the wrong vibe about the mailing list.

I hate to disagree, but when someone is asking about a significant and
complex piece of functionality which is amply documented elsewhere, I
think it is perfectly legitimate to point them at that documentation,
rather than typing all the documentation into an email. I brought up
Kent's book (which costs money, admittedly) only because I felt that
his coverage of validation was superior to the standard Tap4 docs, and
because you'd already gotten a link to the standard docs, so I wanted
to make sure you knew about both sources. I also included the full
title of the book and mentioned where to find a link to it. I don't
really know how I could have been friendlier about suggesting that you
read the docs before asking questions that are already easily answered
elsewhere. I didn't want to give you a quickie answer for fear that I
would either misinform you due to my own inexperience or that I might
fail to completely answer your question. Much easier to send you to
the source and get it right the first time.


>
>
>
5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

More telling, I think, is the fact that the folks who answer questions
around here often reference it, and many of the folks asking questions
haven't read it yet. It certainly gave me a baseline of Tapestry
knowledge very rapidly. I still have a ton to learn, but it got me
started.

--
5/10/06, Pedro Viegas <pviegas (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
If anybody has doubts of what Sam is saying about this book
if anyone thinks it's just a book he, me, and a few others liked
Do make a search on this forum for quotes on this book it's not
that
old
and you will see the results!
Garanteed! It's a must have. ;-)

5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

Again, "Enjoy Web Development with Tapestry" (the pdf book about
tap4)
covers validation in detail. I highly recommend it. See the Tap
home
page for details.

--
5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
You might not believe me, but I only saw the "validators"
attribute
now.
And
I've been looking at that page for the past 2 hours.

5/10/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of
validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html,
something
like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I
see
are
only
for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch
validation at
all.

Hi Rui,

I feel a bit sad reading your comments.
I have been browsing this list since a good friend of mine pointed it out to
me like mandatory for a tapestry developer.
I have been blessed with precious help from common folks like you and me,
Tapestry gurus that do regular consulting work on Tap, and even Tapestry
commiters who take the time to help us newbies with the
real-life-not-so-motivating little or not so little problems.
I myself am still on the very beginning of the process, and have been trying
to start giving something back to the list out of shear gratitude of
precisely what you're hinting the other way. I feel this list as the lighter
atmosphere I have encountered.
Everybody of every level of expertise now and again takes the time to help
one another, very few posts go unanswered.

Honestly I must state that you don't have to feel that way about this list.
I'm sure that if you take the time you'll see for yourself that your current
views, are not at all accurate.

more note. I must say you have been a little harsh on Sam.
Not wanting to step on somebody's toes or go about defending who doesn't
need defending, but I have been reading Sam's posts daily for a few days in
this list. He has given very good contributions to the community, including
the one for yourself, he has in the past days been loosing sleep working
with the Tacos team to integrate a set of components he and his team has
built in the past weeks into Tacos library for all us to use in the near
future. Very quality work, free of charge and with no gain whatsoever to
himself.

So, you will understand why I had to post this opinion. The help you
received was very to the point and all of us point out the book simply
because it's great!!! It's a very practical book that get's you
developing right on it's first pages.

As for Sam, well, with all I have described, it's ridiculous to state that a
comment from him is contributing to a not so light atmosphere in this list.
As I have posted in another topic after Sam's efforts provided with yet
another component praise Sam. :-)

Just thought to set a few information here so that wrong impressions get
carried away and the proper feedback due to contributors like Sam is given.

Hope you read my intentions well.
Best of luck on your tapestry learning path best of luck to us both on
this path, and rest assured your on the right place for gatting the help you
need.

Regards,

5/11/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

I was not talking about specific cases, like my problem with validation
which was admittedly my fault.
What I want to say is that its not very friendly to send the URL of a
book.
It gives the impression that "I dont care". Sometimes, all we need is a
holding hand.

Dont want to start a flame war, but the folks over at the Wicket mailing
list dont seem to be bothered with answering any and all questions.
Granted,
there are no books about Wicket, the framework is you and they want to
draw
developers. But the atmosphere is lighter. At least I feel more
comfortable
there.

again, these are my views. Dont take this personally or as an attack
on
the framework. I love Tapestry and it is working up to what I expected it
to
be.

5/11/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

5/10/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
Well, first, you reference it as Kent's book. Most people come to
Tapestry
because a project landed on their laps and they need to get up to
speed
quickly. Referencing a book as "Kent's" is somewhat vague.

Second, most of the time we just want quick answers. I know I didnt
need
the
book, I just needed some help clearing a couple of specific doubts.
When
we're looking for a quick answer, referencing the book is the same as
saying
"go away". It sends the wrong vibe about the mailing list.

I hate to disagree, but when someone is asking about a significant and
complex piece of functionality which is amply documented elsewhere, I
think it is perfectly legitimate to point them at that documentation,
rather than typing all the documentation into an email. I brought up
Kent's book (which costs money, admittedly) only because I felt that
his coverage of validation was superior to the standard Tap4 docs, and
because you'd already gotten a link to the standard docs, so I wanted
to make sure you knew about both sources. I also included the full
title of the book and mentioned where to find a link to it. I don't
really know how I could have been friendlier about suggesting that you
read the docs before asking questions that are already easily answered
elsewhere. I didn't want to give you a quickie answer for fear that I
would either misinform you due to my own inexperience or that I might
fail to completely answer your question. Much easier to send you to
the source and get it right the first time.


>
>
>
5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

More telling, I think, is the fact that the folks who answer
questions
around here often reference it, and many of the folks asking
questions
haven't read it yet. It certainly gave me a baseline of Tapestry
knowledge very rapidly. I still have a ton to learn, but it got me
started.

--
5/10/06, Pedro Viegas <pviegas (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
If anybody has doubts of what Sam is saying about this book
if anyone thinks it's just a book he, me, and a few others
liked
Do make a search on this forum for quotes on this book it's not
that
old
and you will see the results!
Garanteed! It's a must have. ;-)

5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

Again, "Enjoy Web Development with Tapestry" (the pdf book about
tap4)
covers validation in detail. I highly recommend it. See the
Tap
home
page for details.

--
5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
You might not believe me, but I only saw the "validators"
attribute
now.
And
I've been looking at that page for the past 2 hours.

5/10/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
--

5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of
validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html,
something
like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I
see
are
only
for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch
validation at
all.

Someone is calling something incorrectly in dojo.widget.defineWidget I
think. Could it be that you also have a widget on this page? Are you
using the version of dojo that came packaged with the version of tacos you
are using?

5/10/06, Daniel Lydiard <dlydiard (AT) hotmail (DOT) comwrote:

I have a tree where i'd like to have some nodes not-clickable, so I skip
rendering the Tree hyperlink (same code used in Tacos Tree example) for
those nodes.

In Firefox it looks like it's working fine but in IE6 i get the following
errors:

FATAL: Could not load 'dojo.xml.Parse'; last tried '__packagejs'
FATAL: Could not load 'dojo.xml.Parse'; last tried '__packagejs'
FATAL: superclass: [object ] borken
--
So again, basically I have a Tree componant where only some of the nodes
are
clickable (every node still has the + - expansion widget still).
By clickable i mean using the following:

<component id="nodeLink" type="tacos:AjaxDirectLink">
<binding name="listener"
value=""/>

<binding name="parameters" value="{
keyProvider.getKey(components.tree.value), not
components.tree.isExpanded(components.tree.value),
currentTreeEmployee.email }"/>

<binding name="updateComponents" value="{ currentTreeEmployee.email,
'selectedTreeEmployee' }"/>

<binding name="effects" value="template:%nodeLink.effects"/>

</component>
>
>
>
Nodes that are not clickable would not user the above code. Thanks.
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe (AT) tapestry (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help (AT) tapestry (DOT) apache.org
--

Hey, while we are on Tapestry Validation, has anyone read this article on a
javascript validator combined with prototype library? Sounds like a cool
alternative that might provide an alternative (and perhaps better?) model.

Message
From: "Pedro Viegas" <pviegas (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: "Tapestry users" <users (AT) tapestry (DOT) apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Validation on Tapestry 4

Hi Rui,

I feel a bit sad reading your comments.
I have been browsing this list since a good friend of mine pointed it out to
me like mandatory for a tapestry developer.
I have been blessed with precious help from common folks like you and me,
Tapestry gurus that do regular consulting work on Tap, and even Tapestry
commiters who take the time to help us newbies with the
real-life-not-so-motivating little or not so little problems.
I myself am still on the very beginning of the process, and have been trying
to start giving something back to the list out of shear gratitude of
precisely what you're hinting the other way. I feel this list as the lighter
atmosphere I have encountered.
Everybody of every level of expertise now and again takes the time to help
one another, very few posts go unanswered.

Honestly I must state that you don't have to feel that way about this list.
I'm sure that if you take the time you'll see for yourself that your current
views, are not at all accurate.

more note. I must say you have been a little harsh on Sam.
Not wanting to step on somebody's toes or go about defending who doesn't
need defending, but I have been reading Sam's posts daily for a few days in
this list. He has given very good contributions to the community, including
the one for yourself, he has in the past days been loosing sleep working
with the Tacos team to integrate a set of components he and his team has
built in the past weeks into Tacos library for all us to use in the near
future. Very quality work, free of charge and with no gain whatsoever to
himself.

So, you will understand why I had to post this opinion. The help you
received was very to the point and all of us point out the book simply
because it's great!!! It's a very practical book that get's you
developing right on it's first pages.

As for Sam, well, with all I have described, it's ridiculous to state that a
comment from him is contributing to a not so light atmosphere in this list.
As I have posted in another topic after Sam's efforts provided with yet
another component praise Sam. :-)

Just thought to set a few information here so that wrong impressions get
carried away and the proper feedback due to contributors like Sam is given.

Hope you read my intentions well.
Best of luck on your tapestry learning path best of luck to us both on
this path, and rest assured your on the right place for gatting the help you
need.

Regards,

5/11/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

I was not talking about specific cases, like my problem with validation
which was admittedly my fault.
What I want to say is that its not very friendly to send the URL of a
book.
It gives the impression that "I dont care". Sometimes, all we need is a
holding hand.

Dont want to start a flame war, but the folks over at the Wicket mailing
list dont seem to be bothered with answering any and all questions.
Granted,
there are no books about Wicket, the framework is you and they want to
draw
developers. But the atmosphere is lighter. At least I feel more
comfortable
there.

again, these are my views. Dont take this personally or as an attack
on
the framework. I love Tapestry and it is working up to what I expected it
to
be.

5/11/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

5/10/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
Well, first, you reference it as Kent's book. Most people come to
Tapestry
because a project landed on their laps and they need to get up to
speed
quickly. Referencing a book as "Kent's" is somewhat vague.

Second, most of the time we just want quick answers. I know I didnt
need
the
book, I just needed some help clearing a couple of specific doubts.
When
we're looking for a quick answer, referencing the book is the same as
saying
"go away". It sends the wrong vibe about the mailing list.

I hate to disagree, but when someone is asking about a significant and
complex piece of functionality which is amply documented elsewhere, I
think it is perfectly legitimate to point them at that documentation,
rather than typing all the documentation into an email. I brought up
Kent's book (which costs money, admittedly) only because I felt that
his coverage of validation was superior to the standard Tap4 docs, and
because you'd already gotten a link to the standard docs, so I wanted
to make sure you knew about both sources. I also included the full
title of the book and mentioned where to find a link to it. I don't
really know how I could have been friendlier about suggesting that you
read the docs before asking questions that are already easily answered
elsewhere. I didn't want to give you a quickie answer for fear that I
would either misinform you due to my own inexperience or that I might
fail to completely answer your question. Much easier to send you to
the source and get it right the first time.


>
>
>
5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

More telling, I think, is the fact that the folks who answer
questions
around here often reference it, and many of the folks asking
questions
haven't read it yet. It certainly gave me a baseline of Tapestry
knowledge very rapidly. I still have a ton to learn, but it got me
started.

--
5/10/06, Pedro Viegas <pviegas (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
If anybody has doubts of what Sam is saying about this book
if anyone thinks it's just a book he, me, and a few others
liked
Do make a search on this forum for quotes on this book it's not
that
old
and you will see the results!
Garanteed! It's a must have. ;-)

5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

Again, "Enjoy Web Development with Tapestry" (the pdf book about
tap4)
covers validation in detail. I highly recommend it. See the
Tap
home
page for details.

--
5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
You might not believe me, but I only saw the "validators"
attribute
now.
And
I've been looking at that page for the past 2 hours.

5/10/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
--

5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of
validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html,
something
like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I
see
are
only
for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch
validation at
all.

yup using the version that came with tacos. The tree links are just
updating a div.

Message
From: "Jesse Kuhnert" <jkuhnert (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: "Tapestry users" <users (AT) tapestry (DOT) apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Tacos tree question

Someone is calling something incorrectly in dojo.widget.defineWidget I
think. Could it be that you also have a widget on this page? Are you
using the version of dojo that came packaged with the version of tacos you
are using?

5/10/06, Daniel Lydiard <dlydiard (AT) hotmail (DOT) comwrote:

I have a tree where i'd like to have some nodes not-clickable, so I skip
rendering the Tree hyperlink (same code used in Tacos Tree example) for
those nodes.

In Firefox it looks like it's working fine but in IE6 i get the following
errors:

FATAL: Could not load 'dojo.xml.Parse'; last tried '__packagejs'
FATAL: Could not load 'dojo.xml.Parse'; last tried '__packagejs'
FATAL: superclass: [object ] borken
--
So again, basically I have a Tree componant where only some of the nodes
are
clickable (every node still has the + - expansion widget still).
By clickable i mean using the following:

<component id="nodeLink" type="tacos:AjaxDirectLink">
<binding name="listener"
value=""/>

<binding name="parameters" value="{
keyProvider.getKey(components.tree.value), not
components.tree.isExpanded(components.tree.value),
currentTreeEmployee.email }"/>

<binding name="updateComponents" value="{ currentTreeEmployee.email,
'selectedTreeEmployee' }"/>

<binding name="effects" value="template:%nodeLink.effects"/>

</component>
>
>
>
Nodes that are not clickable would not user the above code. Thanks.
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe (AT) tapestry (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help (AT) tapestry (DOT) apache.org
--

More to the point, I've only been using Tapestry for a couple of
months, and both Howard's book and Kent's book helped me enormously.
So I take every opportunity to recommend that all tap newbies read
them, as they are far and away the best documentation we have,
especially for folks still in the initial stages of learning. I tend
to think of the books as appropriate for initial learning, the
documentation as reference, and the list for covering intermediate and
advanced material not covered adequately in other documentation. It
doesn't make sense to have the community continually typing the
documentation into the email list in order to allow new users to skip
reading the available documentation.

But hey, I'm new here, so what do I know? I certainly don't want to
chase anyone away, as I think Tapestry is great and has easily the
most potential of any framework available to java programmers today.
So I apologize if my comments were perceived as abrupt. They weren't
intended that way. I just think that recommending the book is the
best advice I can give.

5/10/06, Pedro Viegas <pviegas (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
Hi Rui,

I feel a bit sad reading your comments.
I have been browsing this list since a good friend of mine pointed it out to
me like mandatory for a tapestry developer.
I have been blessed with precious help from common folks like you and me,
Tapestry gurus that do regular consulting work on Tap, and even Tapestry
commiters who take the time to help us newbies with the
real-life-not-so-motivating little or not so little problems.
I myself am still on the very beginning of the process, and have been trying
to start giving something back to the list out of shear gratitude of
precisely what you're hinting the other way. I feel this list as the lighter
atmosphere I have encountered.
Everybody of every level of expertise now and again takes the time to help
one another, very few posts go unanswered.

Honestly I must state that you don't have to feel that way about this list.
I'm sure that if you take the time you'll see for yourself that your current
views, are not at all accurate.

more note. I must say you have been a little harsh on Sam.
Not wanting to step on somebody's toes or go about defending who doesn't
need defending, but I have been reading Sam's posts daily for a few days in
this list. He has given very good contributions to the community, including
the one for yourself, he has in the past days been loosing sleep working
with the Tacos team to integrate a set of components he and his team has
built in the past weeks into Tacos library for all us to use in the near
future. Very quality work, free of charge and with no gain whatsoever to
himself.

So, you will understand why I had to post this opinion. The help you
received was very to the point and all of us point out the book simply
because it's great!!! It's a very practical book that get's you
developing right on it's first pages.

As for Sam, well, with all I have described, it's ridiculous to state that a
comment from him is contributing to a not so light atmosphere in this list.
As I have posted in another topic after Sam's efforts provided with yet
another component praise Sam. :-)

Just thought to set a few information here so that wrong impressions get
carried away and the proper feedback due to contributors like Sam is given.

Hope you read my intentions well.
Best of luck on your tapestry learning path best of luck to us both on
this path, and rest assured your on the right place for gatting the help you
need.

Regards,

5/11/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

I was not talking about specific cases, like my problem with validation
which was admittedly my fault.
What I want to say is that its not very friendly to send the URL of a
book.
It gives the impression that "I dont care". Sometimes, all we need is a
holding hand.

Dont want to start a flame war, but the folks over at the Wicket mailing
list dont seem to be bothered with answering any and all questions.
Granted,
there are no books about Wicket, the framework is you and they want to
draw
developers. But the atmosphere is lighter. At least I feel more
comfortable
there.

again, these are my views. Dont take this personally or as an attack
on
the framework. I love Tapestry and it is working up to what I expected it
to
be.

5/11/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

5/10/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
Well, first, you reference it as Kent's book. Most people come to
Tapestry
because a project landed on their laps and they need to get up to
speed
quickly. Referencing a book as "Kent's" is somewhat vague.

Second, most of the time we just want quick answers. I know I didnt
need
the
book, I just needed some help clearing a couple of specific doubts.
When
we're looking for a quick answer, referencing the book is the same as
saying
"go away". It sends the wrong vibe about the mailing list.

I hate to disagree, but when someone is asking about a significant and
complex piece of functionality which is amply documented elsewhere, I
think it is perfectly legitimate to point them at that documentation,
rather than typing all the documentation into an email. I brought up
Kent's book (which costs money, admittedly) only because I felt that
his coverage of validation was superior to the standard Tap4 docs, and
because you'd already gotten a link to the standard docs, so I wanted
to make sure you knew about both sources. I also included the full
title of the book and mentioned where to find a link to it. I don't
really know how I could have been friendlier about suggesting that you
read the docs before asking questions that are already easily answered
elsewhere. I didn't want to give you a quickie answer for fear that I
would either misinform you due to my own inexperience or that I might
fail to completely answer your question. Much easier to send you to
the source and get it right the first time.


>
>
>
5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

More telling, I think, is the fact that the folks who answer
questions
around here often reference it, and many of the folks asking
questions
haven't read it yet. It certainly gave me a baseline of Tapestry
knowledge very rapidly. I still have a ton to learn, but it got me
started.

--
5/10/06, Pedro Viegas <pviegas (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
If anybody has doubts of what Sam is saying about this book
if anyone thinks it's just a book he, me, and a few others
liked
Do make a search on this forum for quotes on this book it's not
that
old
and you will see the results!
Garanteed! It's a must have. ;-)

5/10/06, Sam Gendler <sgendler (AT) ideasculptor (DOT) comwrote:

Again, "Enjoy Web Development with Tapestry" (the pdf book about
tap4)
covers validation in detail. I highly recommend it. See the
Tap
home
page for details.

--
5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
You might not believe me, but I only saw the "validators"
attribute
now.
And
I've been looking at that page for the past 2 hours.

5/10/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
--

5/9/06, Rui Pacheco <rui.pacheco (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

Anyone, someone Could you provide me with an example of
validation in
Tapestry 4? Is it possible to do it inline in the html,
something
like
<input jwcid="something@TextField" validation="Email"?

I have been searching on the net, but the examples that I
see
are
only
for
Tapestry 3 and the ones for Tapestry 4 don't touch
validation at
all.