[bv-dev] Should getters be considered methods during validation

[Hardy Ferentschik]

Hi,

I think I would like to clarify a few things first. We keep just talking about getters.
What does this actually mean? Do we talk about any method starting with 'get' or 
do we mean getters for properties in the Java Bean sense (aka getters for fields with
the matching name)? 

Do you want to exclude any method starting with 'get' from method validation or just 
properties getters? If the latter, are we not introducing some quite arbitrary distinction 
between methods starting with 'get'?

Also what's about methods starting with 'is'? Wouldn't we have to exclude them
as well in this case?

Also, in the current specification (1.0, 3.1.2. Field and property validation) is the intention
to only validate a getter when it is a Java Bean property (backed up by a matching field)?
I think this is not very clear and not explicitly tested in the TCK.


On 6 Jan 2012, at 6:53 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:

> If we treat getters as regular methods, we would add a new
> behavior to all existing constrained beans. Things that were constrained
> at specific lifecycles boundaries would now be constrained every time a
> getter is called. That would break backward compatibility.

Backward compatibility is indeed an issue. However, instead of imo arbitrarily 
considering a getXYZ not as a method, I would have just not enabled method validation
out of the box. I would have made it an active choice. Alternatively I would add an option
to switch between ignoring getters and taking them into consideration for method validation.
However, I don't think  @ValidateOnCall is a good option though. This seems to me to 
intrusive. I rather add a configuration option for the ValidatorFactory.

> Even if a getter was to be constrained on call - you would probably want
> to constrain on the setter 

What if other method modify the state of the property (not just a setter). Maybe the intend
is to verify that the object is in a certain state when I request it.

> But I do like the simplicity of the rule claiming that all methods
> are constrained regardless of their similarity to the Bean
> specification. I do not currently thing that this argument alone 
> outweighs the other problems.

I think it is a argument for consistency. Excluding getter methods from a general method validation
framework seems to introduce unnecessary inconsistency and might even exclude the framework
as general method validation framework of choice.

> ### Forcing a getter to behave as a regular method
> 
> To solve this use case, we can introduce a `@ValidateOnCall`
> annotation that should be placed on the getter method.

See above.

--Hardy