[bv-dev] Ordered Validation (practically)

[Emmanuel Bernard]

I'm also concerned about portability and simplicity. I feel it would be too meta and not concrete enough to be useful. 
I can be convinced otherwise but that's my initial feeling. 

On 8 janv. 2012, at 10:16, Hardy Ferentschik <hardy at hibernate.org> wrote:

> I am not so sure whether such a contract would be such a good idea. If we want to hold on to
> the byte code or annotation processor idea (if the latter is even possible), such a contract would 
> make sense.
> 
> However, that excludes imo the explicit configuration of order, either via  Emmanuel's 
> @GroupSequence.ordering=PER_TARGET or via a simple order property in the constraint itself.
> 
> As a user of BV I think I would rather prefer to directly see and hence be able to infer the order.
> And just imagine different  compilers actually do have different orders. That would be a total mess.
> 
> --Hardy
> 
> 
> On Jan 7, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev