Re: please vote - package-proposal Payment_IBAN

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:21:52 +0200 "Stefan Neufeind" <Neufeind@speedpartner.de> wrote: > > I'm against Validate. It's also "parsing" - and in the following > than just "apply a regex" (like email-validation and similar). Also > extraction of certain data (e.g. "extract bankcode") doesn't belong > in Validation I would say. Validate does much more in many situations than just apply a regexp... > And last: Validation would get really too bloated. The only way I > could think of to integrate the current IBAN-stuff would be a > separate Validate_IBAN-class (and having Validate not as a class but > as a tree-hierarchy in the index). > Well, but anyways ... Validate (see explanation above) is out of > discussion, right? No. There is already other validation methods that have non static validation. I mean that requires to update/get some data before doing the validation. Then the tree/subclass system is exaclty how is designed Validate or how it was thought. For locale as well as kind of validation (see the code). However I cannot force you to put it there :). But this is where I think it fits the best. > Pierre: Let's better put it under payment since it's also directly > related and will be extended. No pierre