[bv-dev] Method constraints and TraversableResolver contract

[Gunnar Morling]

I've created https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/BVAL-357

> I think you should call isReachable and isCascadable for params and
return values.

> Of the top of my head I cannot think of a reason why we would need to use
isReachable on a parameter

So do you think isReachable() *is* required or not? Regarding your entity
example, did you mean it like this:

@Entity
public class Customer {}

public class CustomerService {
    public void updateCustomer(@RetailCustomer @Valid Customer customer) {
    }
}

Then I guess it would indeed make sense to call isReachable() and
isCascadable() when validating the "customer" parameter.

--Gunnar



2013/1/10 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>

> That's an interesting question. I think you should call isReachable and
> isCascadable for params and return values.
> Imagine a constraint validating a JPA entity. You don't want it to be
> validated if the entity is a proxy. This constraint could access a few of
> the entity state properties. And that's before cascading.
>
> isCascadable was a contract added specifically so that the same entity
> would not be validated over and over if it happened to be referenced by
> several other entities in a dirty persistence context.
>
> Open an issue because we need to clarify all that in the spec.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> Of the top of my head I cannot think of a reason why we would need to use
> isReachable on a parameter
>
> On 9 janv. 2013, at 15:42, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > working on the TCK, I'm wondering whether a BV provider should use
> TraversableResolver#isReachable() and isCascadable()) to check whether a
> validated method parameter or return value may be accessed/traversed.
> >
> > I think checking for cascadability might make sense, but I'm not so sure
> about checking for reachability; can e.g. be a parameter not reachable?
> >
> > If any of the checks shall be done for method validation, we need to
> update the TraversableResolver contract (section 4.6.3) which currently
> explicitly speaks about properties and is limited to the element types
> FIELD and METHOD.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > --Gunnar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20130110/ec3f41ea/attachment.html