+1 for #3<div><br></div><div>regards,</div><div>gerhard<br clear="all"><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/2/28 Michael Nascimento <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:misterm@gmail.com">misterm@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">3 seems by far the best since it can be strongly typed-checked through<br>
a processor, as mentioned.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Michael<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Emmanuel Bernard<br>
<<a href="mailto:emmanuel@hibernate.org">emmanuel@hibernate.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 26 févr. 2012, at 12:21, Gunnar Morling wrote:<br>
><br>
>> @Emmanuel: For the first BV 1.1 draft I suggest to leave out<br>
>> cross-parameter constraints. This shouldn't change the general scheme<br>
>> of method validation, so we could add that in a later draft revision.<br>
><br>
> That or you describe succinctly options 2 and 3 for feedback.<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org">beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
beanvalidation-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org">beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>