FubuMVC.Validation Low-Fi scenarios

[jmarnold]

Anybody still struggling with the whole "I need to keep the values
that I posted...how the hell do I use this?" issue? It's a breeze with
ajax-based requests but full posts are where we fell short. I have a
fix in mind for this but wanted to see who's still bumping up into
this (or ditched FubuMVC.Validation b/c of it)

[Jaime Jhon]

+1

I am evaluating different approaches for fubuvalidation usage (POST/AjaxContinuation), and to my surprise, this is one of the scenarios where I think fubu gives you no choice, AFAIK, other than use IFubuRequest and ask for the old model.

e.g.:

https://github.com/emiaj/ProductsManagement/blob/master/ProductsManagement/Handlers/Products/EditHandler.cs#L26

So yeah, some built-in help from fubu would come in handy.

Keep up the good work.

Regards,

Jaime.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FubuMVC Development Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to fubumv...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fubumvc-deve...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fubumvc-devel?hl=en.

[jmarnold]

 @Jaime,

We need a fix to FubuContinuation and IPartialInvoker to allow the Redirect/Transfer call to specify the categoryOrHttpMethod but...here's my idea:

For low-fi scenarios, let's have a convention where input models for Gets and Posts are symmetric. This will allow a conventional url lookup by simply changing from POST to GET during a transfer when validation fails. That way it's just a matter of saying "Ok, I have my EditProductModel and it's not valid. Let me transfer to the GET for this model". Of course, the other part of the "convention" is that the output of your GET is that same input model. 

You can of course choose to do it completely different but I want to bake this one in.

How does that sound? 

[Jaime Jhon]

+1

That sounds good Josh :)

Looking forward to play with it :)

Keep up the good work.

Regards.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FubuMVC Development Group" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fubumvc-devel/-/RBasRgH7blMJ.

[Kaylor Mail]

+1 sounds good

[jmarnold]

Cool. I think I'll try to tackle it this weekend, then.

On Jan 4, 8:09 am, Kaylor Mail <co...@kaylors.net> wrote:
> +1 sounds good
>

> On Jan 3, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Jaime Jhon <jaime.feb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > +1
>
> > That sounds good Josh :)
>
> > Looking forward to play with it :)
>
> > Keep up the good work.
>
> > Regards.
>

> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:55 PM, jmarnold <rncodep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  @Jaime,
>
> > We need a fix to FubuContinuation and IPartialInvoker to allow the Redirect/Transfer call to specify the categoryOrHttpMethod but...here's my idea:
>
> > For low-fi scenarios, let's have a convention where input models for Gets and Posts are symmetric. This will allow a conventional url lookup by simply changing from POST to GET during a transfer when validation fails. That way it's just a matter of saying "Ok, I have my EditProductModel and it's not valid. Let me transfer to the GET for this model". Of course, the other part of the "convention" is that the output of your GET is that same input model.
>
> > You can of course choose to do it completely different but I want to bake this one in.
>
> > How does that sound?
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FubuMVC Development Group" group.

> > To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/fubumvc-devel/-/RBasRgH7blMJ.

>
> > To post to this group, send email to fubumv...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fubumvc-deve...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/fubumvc-devel?hl=en.