<div><div>+1 for 2.b but -1 for a package annotation and/or config.</div><div><br></div><div>regards,</div><div>gerhard</div><div><br></div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/12/11 Emmanuel Bernard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:emmanuel@hibernate.org" target="_blank">emmanuel@hibernate.org</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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>
<div class="im HOEnZb"><br>
Emmanuel<br>
<br>
On Tue 2012-10-23 18:19, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:<br>
</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> 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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>