in reply to RFC: Data::FormValidator params interface enhancement
How about marking the validation routine rather than the parameters, so you would have:
constraints => { image_name => [ { constraint_method => 'file_format', }, { constraint_method => 'file_max_bytes', params => [\100], }, { constraint_method => 'image_max_dimensions', params => [\200,\200], }, ],
you could either add a method to D::FV that allows you to find out the name of the field whose contraints are currently being checked (which would involve rewriting the validation subroutines), or make it a convention that the first two args are always the D::FV object and the name of the field being checked.
So:
foo => { constraint_method => 'bar', params => \@args },
would translate to either:
foo => { constraint => 'bar', params => [$dfv, @args]] },
or
foo => { constraint => 'bar', params => [$dfv, 'foo', @args] },
(where $dfv is the D::FV object in question)
I'd prefer the former since you would then have a direct mapping to the Perl method calling convention:
bar($dfv, @args); $dfv->bar(@args);
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re: Re: RFC: Data::FormValidator params interface enhancement
by markjugg (Curate) on Apr 21, 2003 at 13:30 UTC |