Skip to content

Loading…

[RFC] removing the validation part #94

Closed
willdurand opened this Issue · 18 comments
@willdurand
Propel member

Hi

I think we should remove the whole validation part. It's not the Propel's job IMO.
It's not really up to date and it causes some issues (See Propel 1.6 issues).

Propel2 has to focus on what it's designed for. The (Symfony2) Validator Component is built to perform validation, if someone wants to validate things, he could use this component.

Thoughts ?

William

@themouette
Propel member
@willdurand willdurand was assigned
@willdurand
Propel member

data consistency

Did you ever use the bundled validation in Propel 1.x ?
Doctrine2 doesn't handle validator neither in DBAL, nor in ORM.

If we focus on the ORM part, then we'll be able to provide a really powerful product. I think we should remove this validation without adding a new validation layer. I prefer to remove some features in order to add more useful ones like behaviors or something else.

@fzaninotto
Propel member

I disagree. Propel can be used without a framework, and knowledge of the model can help generate simple validators. For the past two years, I have seen many people use Propel validators, and that proves that it's useful - although I agree it's flawed.

But Propel needs a lightweight validator generator IMHO.

@willdurand
Propel member
@willdurand
Propel member

I'm back on that issue and I think more and more that we have to remove the validation part.
There is no need to keep a plain old validation that is probably not up to date.

Once again, the Validator Component is designed for that part and works as a standalone lib. For those who use Propel without a Framework, they can rely on this component too. It will be widely better for us.

@hhamon
Propel member

I'm +1 for this.

1- This is not the job of the ORM. The ORM just converts a relational model to an OOP model.
2- The database vendor can have validation features, why don't use them?
3- For me, it's the role of the developer to take care of the data he wants to persist to the storage engine.

Don't make Propel heavier... I'm pretty sure that people who already use the validation stuff in Propel 1.x won't migrate their old code to Propel 2.0. It would be a huge amount of code to write and there is probably no need for that. So, as Propel 2 is not yet stable we can make it lighter and even faster by removing unneeded tools.

We should try to keep Propel as thin and light as possible to ease support. Maybe these extra tools could be released as behaviors or third party tools like Doctrines does with migrations for example.

@ClementGautier

I agree with @willdurand : less code is less bugs, support duplicates validators doesn't make sense, its the job of the Validation component to do this.

@themouette
Propel member
@stof

I think it would be better to provide a hook allowing to use an existing validator instead of maintaining another one (which is not what Propel is about). Every PHP framework probably have a validator, and the Symfony2 Validator component is standalone (maybe other validators too but I don't know them).
Having something like the PrePersist and PreUpdate Doctrine events would achieve this.

AFAIK, such hooks don't exist in Propel 1.6 as the only hooks (I know of) are inside the model class and so cannot use external dependencies (except by making them statically available which is painful when the app is designed around the DI pattern)

@harikt

I agree with @stof probably a hook , so can use one validator or the other .

@guilhermeaiolfi

I've never used validators in Propel 1.x. So, no problem for me.

@bugbyte

+1 from me too for removing the validation. I never used it in 1.x either.

@cristianoc72
Propel member

I agree with @themouette . I always use Propel 1.x validators and i find wonderful to configure and generate validators via schema.xml file.

@fzaninotto
Propel member

Please, ask this question on the Propel Users mailing-list and you will see people who do use this feature.

I would agree with removing the current validation layer only if we provided a similar feature with another tool. Propel users must be able to define a validation format in their schema - not via annotations or classes.

@nnarhinen

I would vote for removing the current implementation but would introduce core behaviors for validation.

For instance

<behavior name="unique_column_validator" />
<behavior name="autogenerate_validators" />
<behavior name="email_validator"><....column="email" /></behavior>

etc..

These behaviors could then use some 3rd party library, if the dependencies would be light. For the runtime I don't feel comfortable with adding more "hard-coded" dependencies.

@scp

Agree with removal and I like @stof's idea of a hook for use with (e.g.) Symfony2 Validator. No point in duplicated efforts, and a lighter/thinner Propel 2.0 with more concentration on the ORM sounds preferable.

@cristianoc72
Propel member

Hi,
I've bootstrapped a validate-behavior, according to this issue. You can find it on my branch "validate-behavior" https://github.com/cristianoc72/Propel2/tree/validate-behavior. I also wrote a draft document in documentation/behavior dir. Any suggestion is welcome (about my awful English, too).

A couple of notes:
1) this behavior is based on Symfony 2 Validator Component
2) this branch is the result of merging @willdurand's remove-validate branch into master branch

ToDo:
1) implementing your suggestions
2) unit tests
3) on the road tests
4) improve documentation

Cristiano

@willdurand
Propel member

Awesome!

@willdurand willdurand closed this
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.