Re: [bv-dev] Ordered Validation (practically)
I am not so sure whether such a contract would be such a good idea. If we want to hold on
to
the byte code or annotation processor idea (if the latter is even possible), such a
contract would
make sense.
However, that excludes imo the explicit configuration of order, either via Emmanuel's
@GroupSequence.ordering=PER_TARGET or via a simple order property in the constraint
itself.
As a user of BV I think I would rather prefer to directly see and hence be able to infer
the order.
And just imagine different compilers actually do have different orders. That would be a
total mess.
--Hardy
On Jan 7, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Gunnar Morling
<gunnar.morling(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> One idea might be to introduce some kind of "validation order
> provider" contract (similar to the parameter name provider we
> discussed recently) with a reasonable default implementation.
>
> BV providers could then come up with custom implementations based on
> byte code order, meta data pre-generated by an annotation processor
> etc. as they like which we still might spec later on if they proved
> useful.
This sounds like a good compromise to transfer the responsibility from
the spec to the implementations for doing crazy things like reading
bytecode... so this would be a new collaborator managed for/by the
ValidatorFactory?