I'm not sure. I think the annotation EG consider it bad practice and
implementation detail abouse to use the annotations as glorified interfaces.

In your case that's ok-ish (minor the XML DD) but if we want to add
behavior later on we might be stuck.

On Thu 2013-01-31 13:43, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> Yeah, that's a good point of course. I liked using a map as it very
> naturally expressed that there may be only one rule per "from" type, but
> making the API evolvable is more important I guess.
>
> How about using ConvertGroup directly, i.e. return a Set<ConvertGroup>? In
> that context the name doesn't read that well, but OTOH
> GroupConvertionDescriptor
> would more or less resemble ConvertGroup. WDYT?
>
>
> 2013/1/31 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel@hibernate.org>
>
> > I'd rather have a GroupConversionDescriptor representing the from / to.
> > My reason is that if we add a new attribute to @ConvertGroup later, we
> > will be able to add it on the descriptor as well.
> >
> > I think we tend to use a Set for the collection of elements in the spec.
> >
> > So that would become a Set<GroupConvertionDescriptor>.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > On Wed 2013-01-30 22:39, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I think one natural way for representing group conversions in the
> > metadata
> > > API would be to add a method
> > >
> > >     Map<Class<?>, Class<?>> getGroupConversions()
> > >
> > > to ParameterDescriptor, ReturnValueDescriptor and PropertyDescriptor
> > > (that's also how conversions are represented internally in the RI).
> > >
> > > Any thoughts on that, or other suggestions? If no one objects, I'd move
> > > forward and add the method to the spec and API.
> > >
> > > --Gunnar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/1/18 Gunnar Morling <gunnar@hibernate.org>
> > >
> > > > > We should.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, I've created https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/BVAL-361 for
> > this.
> > > >
> > > > --Gunnar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2013/1/18 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel@hibernate.org>
> > > >
> > > >> We should.
> > > >>
> > > >> The reason the metadata API is complete is so that non Java system can
> > > >> propagate the constraints and logic of validation. Client side
> > presentation
> > > >> framework was the canonical example.
> > > >>
> > > >> On 17 janv. 2013, at 21:44, Gunnar Morling <gunnar@hibernate.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi all,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > As the title says: should we provide a way to access configured
> > group
> > > >> conversions via the meta-data API?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I'm undecided, I don't really see where this would be useful, OTOH
> > > >> we've exposed all BV-related configurations via the meta-data API so
> > far,
> > > >> so I guess we probably should for the sake of completeness.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thoughts?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --Gunnar
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > 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
> >

> _______________________________________________
> 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