Implicit grouping?

On 21 nov. 2012, at 20:32, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:

hi @ all,

i agree with emmanuel (as mentioned earlier).

@emmanuel:

thx for writing the summary!

short addition:

we also have to think about implicit grouping here.

regards,

gerhard

2012/11/21 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel@hibernate.org>

I tried to summarize all the discussions at http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-327/

While I wish we could go the easy way and consider getters as methods, I
really really fear that we would create a time bomb.

I also polled people at Devoxx trying to explain the pros and cons
and an overwhelming majority of people wanted to not consider getters
as regular constrained methods.

Emmanuel

On Tue 2012-10-23 18:19, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> For method validation, we have so far managed to get away with
> requiring an annotation based metadata to direct how method validation
> behaves.
>
> One question that popped up during the recent write up is whether or not
> getters should be considered regular methods and thus be intercepted and
> validation by CDI or AspectJ interceptors.
>
> I have my own ideas, but I'd like to get your opinion on the subject.
>
> Emmanuel
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev