Re: [bv-dev] Spec question on constructors
Hi Gunnar,
I don't see that Apache BVal has done this either, but TBH our
metadata is somewhat a mess by this time and I hope to rewrite it for
v2.0.
Matt
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
Hi Matt,
I agree that this sentence shouldn't be there in the JavaDoc; I reckon
it's a copy & paste mistake from getConstraintsForMethod().
Indeed the RI doesn't return a descriptor for a super-type
constructor. Do you know whether it's the same for Apache BVal? If so
I think we should remove the sentence from the JavaDoc. I don't see it
as a migration concern if no certified impl ever implemented that
behaviour.
--Gunnar
2017-06-15 17:15 GMT+02:00 Matt Benson <mbenson(a)apache.org>:
> The last paragraph of section 5.6.5 states that inheritance rules do
> not apply to constructors as these are not inherited. However, the
> Javadoc of BeanDescriptor#getConstraintsForConstructor(Class<?>...)
> says "Constructor of super types are considered." While it could be
> possible to implement this, what would be the point? These notions
> feel at odds with one another.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev