Yes, one of the consequences as you point out is that we will define the @MethodValidated
contract in BV.
While I think it's a good thing, I want everyone to understand this consequence.
On 15 août 2012, at 22:56, Gunnar Morling wrote:
Hi all,
based on an issue I recently filed, CDI lead Pete Muir started a
thread on the integration of BV and CDI over on the CDI mailing list
[1].
The general question is where this integration should be described. My
first assumption was, that the Java EE platform spec. would be the
right place for this is, but Java EE co-lead Bill Shannon pointed out
[2] that the preferred approach is to have such integrations described
in one of the involved technology specs.
And actually we're already doing this to some degree as of the BV 1.1
early draft [3]. So I guess our descriptions there need just to be a
bit more authoritative ("must" instead of "should" etc.) and
specific.
In section 3.7, the CDI spec. currently also mentions built-in beans
for Validator and ValidatorFactory to be provided by a Java EE
container. To consolidate the specs I tend to think that this section
should be merged into BV section 5.5.7.1.
The same approach should probably also be taken for the description of
triggering method validation under Java EE using the @MethodValidated
annotation.
Any thoughts?
--Gunnar
[1]
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/2012-August/001978.html
[2]
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/2012-August/002045.html
[3]
http://beanvalidation.org/1.1/spec/#d0e6698
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev