<div><div><div>hi sebastian,</div><div><br></div><div>i was going to +1 1.b as well, but i don't agree with point #1 (if it is globally and/or users have to do it in any case) and #2.</div><div>(with @ValidateOnCall i'm ok with both default behaviours, if there is a way to change it for a bv-archive.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>regards,</div><div>gerhard</div></div></div><div><br></div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/12/11 Sebastian Thomschke <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sebastian.thomschke@web.de" target="_blank">sebastian.thomschke@web.de</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I'm +1 for option 1b.<br>
<br>
A constraint annotation added to a regular non-getter method always<br>
describes a return value contract whereas a constraint annotation added<br>
to a getter method may be meant to be<br>
a) a return value contract or<br>
b) a property constraint, that only is supposed to be considered during<br>
bean validation.<br>
<br>
For getter method constraint annotation my gut feeling is, that you<br>
usually want b) - a property constraint definition.<br>
<br>
In OVal we have the annotation @IsInvariant to mark the constraints<br>
defined on a getter for being return value contracts if not present the<br>
constraints are not interpreted as return value contracts.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Seb<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 11.12.2012 16:50, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:<br>
> That should hopefully be the last round. Here are the alternatives that<br>
> I think are viable <a href="http://goo.gl/ubjn3" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/ubjn3</a><br>
><br>
> Please give your feedback.<br>
><br>
> Emmanuel<br>
><br>
> On Tue 2012-10-23 18:19, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:<br>
>> For method validation, we have so far managed to get away with<br>
>> requiring an annotation based metadata to direct how method validation<br>
>> behaves.<br>
>><br>
>> One question that popped up during the recent write up is whether or not<br>
>> getters should be considered regular methods and thus be intercepted and<br>
>> validation by CDI or AspectJ interceptors.<br>
>><br>
>> I have my own ideas, but I'd like to get your opinion on the subject.<br>
>><br>
>> Emmanuel<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>
> 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>