Andrew Pollack's Blog

Technology, Family, Entertainment, Politics, and Random Noise

Agh. Just when you think your XPage is behaving -- something else IBM failed to do right. Validation on multi-document XPages

By Andrew Pollack on 03/02/2012 at 02:25 PM EST

UPDATE: This is actually something already fixed. Paul Withers pointed me to this fix: I just had to check this box on the button event.



Now I'm off to eat some crow....


You have got to be kidding me. It turns out that if you have multiple data sources (documents) on different parts of your XPage, although you can individually toggle them into and out of edit mode, save them or discard them individually, and generally act on them as you'd expect; if you attempt to use the built in XPages validation functionality (which would be quite nice if it worked) -- you can't realistically separate it so only the validation events related to the document you're acting on get fired off.

That is to say, if you have DOC1 and DOC2 both in edit mode and you attempt to save DOC1 -- all of DOC2's validation code fires as well. If you're not done editing DOC2, it doesn't matter. You get validation failures and your DOC1 change doesn't complete. I detailed the specifics of the problem I'm having over here on Stack Overflow if anyone wants to show me I'm wrong. (thanks Paul Withers for doing just that)

I've seen several attempts to work around this -- some come pretty close. Particularly Tommy Valand's work -- though that falls down once one of the fields does invalidate for a valid reason, and the whole page has to be reloaded to set things right. I've also figured out a pretty complex way to make it work by using the events that fire both server and client side on each button to change the validation requirements of the various fields elsewhere in the XPage. These are hacks, and generally they require so much work you may as well just write your own damn client and server side validation code and ignore what IBM has done in XPages.

In searching, I've seen plenty of comments from XPages supporters saying "IBM is very much aware of this problem and is working on a solution" -- as Yoda might say "Fucking break you must give me!". We're several years and several revisions into a product that was already on the market (though truly not actually being sold to many people) at the time they bought it. This kind of amateur hour crap should have been dealt with years ago. And it was dealt with already.


There are  - loading -  comments....

re: Agh. Just when you think your XPage is behaving -- something else IBM failed to do right. Validation on multi-document XPagesBy Me on 03/02/2012 at 04:41 PM EST
I now know why you were dumped from the design partner program... to much
complaining..

Don't like it.. move to doing Microsoft or Oracle
re: Agh. Just when you think your XPage is behaving -- something else IBM failed to do right. Validation on multi-document XPagesBy Andrew Pollack on 03/02/2012 at 04:54 PM EST
Thanks, Ed Maloney.

I used to provide feedback "in the family" through channels. Unfortunately,
the people who did listen to it were generally in agreement but weren't placed
well enough to be able to get the solutions funded. The people who made the
decisions only wanted buy in, not real feedback.

I believe it is perfectly valid to make the people who make the decisions on
what to fund as uncomfortable with the bad design decisions that result as I
possibly can.

You know, you're welcome to comment here, but we do ask that you give your
name. I opted not to delete yours because, frankly, you're not very good at
being anonymous.

I suppose I should add that your company in particular gets quite a bit of
extra attention due to some personal relationships at higher levels between the
IBM Lotus side and the upper management side there. You should keep in mind
that the kind of attention you've see there is most definitely NOT typical.
re: Agh. Just when you think your XPage is behaving -- something else IBM failed to do right. Validation on multi-document XPagesBy Ed Maloney on 03/03/2012 at 12:50 PM EST
"Nothing further, your honor"
re: Agh. Just when you think your XPage is behaving -- something else IBM failed to do right. Validation on multi-document XPagesBy Andrew Pollack on 03/03/2012 at 01:14 PM EST
Fair enough. I do make it a point to be just as loud when I'm wrong. It does
happen.


Other Recent Stories...

  1. 11/10/2014Simplified explanation and steps for upgrading to SHA-2 encrypted SSL certificates for DominoI went through the process to understand what IBM is saying in their patch information -- and while it's valid, it's also harder than it needs to be (IMCO) for people already used to doing things the Domino way. If you're already familiar with using the server certification database to create the keyring and make the certificate request certificate (CSR) you can keep using it. This is also helpful if you already have a SHA1 based certificate and you just want to re-issue. Note: This resolves the browser ...... 
  2. 11/04/2014Warning: IBMs Interim Fix¬†adding TLS 1.0 to Domino can break connections from Python and some other scripting clientsHere's a bit of joy to add to your day. Once your server can speak TLS 1.0 to help secure you from POODLE attacks, any code making connections to your server over HTTPS that use the utilities wget, curl and most importanly Python (and others, apparently) may break. The issue is that these tools are built using a version of openSSL that will try to connect using TLS 1.2 first -- and when that fails, the connection gets dropped. I've seen reports of this in Ruby as well, but I've verified that it is an issue ...... 
  3. 11/04/2014Patch for the SSL v3 POODLE exploit has escaped IBM and can now be downloaded. You REALLY need this patchIf you do not apply this patch, you are going to start having users unable to connect using SSL to your Domino servers. Vendors and customer sites are starting to release operating system and browser patch that block access to sites using only SSLv3 without TLS. Until this morning, that meant all Domino servers not using a reverse proxy front end of some kind. This patch adds TLS 1.0 to Domino versions 8.51, 8.52, 8.53, 9.0, and 9.01 in all the various platforms. TLS 1.0 is a fairly old version of TLS but ...... 
  4. 10/29/2014Automatic Spam Report to Provider Agent 
  5. 10/21/2014Quick update on the Domino SSL v3 "POODLE" , TLS, and SHA-2 issues -- Good news 
  6. 10/16/2014Summary Recommendation for dealing with the POODLE SSLv3 Vulnerability on Domino servers 
  7. 10/14/2014Speaking tonight ath the ICU One (aka NE Notes Users Group) 
  8. 10/09/2014Presentations from AdminCamp 2014 
  9. 09/17/2014IBM Domino Servers STILL don't support SSL SHA-2 Certificates - and it is about to be a PROBLEM 
  10. 02/09/2014Changing what I do at the Fire Department 
Click here for more articles.....


pen icon Comment Entry
Subject
Your Name
Homepage
*Your Email
* Your email address is required, but not displayed.
 
Your thoughts....
 
Remember Me  

Please wait while your document is saved.