[bv-dev] Ordered Validation (practically)

Matt Benson mbenson at apache.org
Sat Jan 7 15:40:20 EST 2012


On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Gunnar Morling
<gunnar.morling at googlemail.com> wrote:
> One idea might be to introduce some kind of "validation order
> provider" contract (similar to the parameter name provider we
> discussed recently) with a reasonable default implementation.
>
> BV providers could then come up with custom implementations based on
> byte code order, meta data pre-generated by an annotation processor
> etc. as they like which we still might spec later on if they proved
> useful.

This sounds like a good compromise to transfer the responsibility from
the spec to the implementations for doing crazy things like reading
bytecode... so this would be a new collaborator managed for/by the
ValidatorFactory?

Matt

>
> --Gunnar
>
> 2012/1/6 Matt Benson <mbenson at apache.org>:
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Emmanuel Bernard
>> <emmanuel at hibernate.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5 janv. 2012, at 16:58, Matt Benson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 janv. 2012, at 13:44, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for summing up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No problem. I will try to sum this up on beanvalidation.org asap as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, say you sum up BV-220 and BV-259 and I will sum up the other subjects disccussed in the last few days. Lots of good content :)
>>>>
>>>> Guys,
>>>>  Just to inject a little insanity into the debate... we've touched on
>>>> the idea of obtaining information in unorthodox ways before (parameter
>>>> names come to mind).  Now, this proceeds from the assumption that a
>>>> given Java compiler would assemble bytecode such that visible
>>>> annotations would stay in the order in which they were defined, but
>>>> given that that is true for one or more available compilers, what is
>>>> the feeling of the community toward specifying that order be derived
>>>> from bytecode inspection?  I realize this is quite specific, but in
>>>> the end nothing is more intuitive than just using the annotations in
>>>> the order in which they are actually specified.
>>>
>>> An alternative is to use annotation processors to capture source time information via some kind of annotations but
>>> both approaches sound very scary.
>>> Matt do you think it's really worth exploring?
>>
>> A little scary, yes.  I think the annotation processing route is a
>> little *more* scary than the bytecode avenue... the least palatable
>> thing about it to me is that it places a heavy burden at the spec
>> level, constraining the implementations to do very specific things.
>> But I do find the bytecode examination idea interesting.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev



More information about the beanvalidation-dev mailing list