Validation classes

Just a small update today, I’ve added two validation classes to the documentation section, match and not match, they are both very simple classes but when used with the xml form builder they can make password validation very simple and reduce the need to write any code.

6 Replies to “Validation classes”

  1. Seems like everything is coming along nicely.

    I had to work with the AIT Direct forms a few weeks ago, that wasn’t fun…a little bit of nostalgia quite quickly replaced by frustration!

  2. I can imagine the pain, think back another year though!!

    It is all coming together nicely yeah, the Framework is much further along than the code of the site suggests, I’m actually not too far from having a base template site ready for download. If everything goes to plan I will be releasing the template site in around six weeks.

  3. Great, I look forward to having a look through it.

    To be honest the WoH framework has kind of been outgrown by the projects we are getting now – plus we’re still maintaining two versions. I’m gonna sit down with Angelbear and a few of the other more savvy guys in the office next week to work out a plan for making it more fit for purpose (feel free to feed ideas into Dan’s head before then if you feel like sharing the love). Not that we’ll ever get time to implement anything though.

    I suppose you heard about Paul and Chris?

  4. It doesn’t really work like that Darren.

    A framework is really just a method, yes it may get to the point where you need things that aren’t in the core template site/framework but as long as all developers respect the methods and core architecture the WoH framework can do anything that Web on High is ever likely to ever tackle.

    You may want to take a look at the Pole Company code, specifically the item_client classes and the logic_product class, any part of the framework can be extended in a similar way.

    Alternatively you may want to wait six weeks and think about using the G3D PHP Framework, I should have released the template site by them.

  5. Yeah, that was more of what I meant – that we need to expand the base functionality, which features should we make sure are in every project, which features are likely to be used in the future and which (if any) can be cast off into the void.

    There’s also a few things which have proven to be a little buggy – the recent Gas-Elec build showed that the pages, pages_rel etc. doesn’t really work as it should (Jason got a bit lost when pages started disappearing as the relationship table got muddled), and I’m sure I’d be able to think of a few more examples if I’d had a bit less beer tonight.

  6. Changing CMS parts isn’t a problem, switching the content system over to something new would be very simple and you wouldn’t need to modify the ‘framework’.

    I don’t recall the pages_rel table ever getting messed up whilst I was there, the fact it was Jason should also hint to you that it may be a usability problem and not logic.

    The old page management forms aren’t particulary great, I’ll give you that, they are aimed at developers, not html scripters. It might be worth rewriting the add/edit page and use a little ajax to populate the relationship drop downs (container and parent), this will limit the options and make it more difficult for users to insert invalid reltionships.

    In addition look at adding restraints on the tables (code or foreign keys) to ensure that a page can’t be deleted if it has children, this should make it almost impossible to mess up.

Comments are closed.