Hi all,
I've started to work on a new version of the XSD for constraint mapping files in order to allow for the XML-based configuration of method/constructor constraints [1] and group conversions [2]. The latest XSD draft can be found at [3].
The following shows how the configuration of method constraints and group conversions would look like:
<bean class="com.acme.MyBean" ignore-annotations="false">
<method name="getFirstname" ignore-annotations="true">
<parameter type="java.lang.String">
<constraint annotation="javax.validation.constraints.Pattern">
<message>Last name has to start with with a capital letter.</message>
<element name="regexp">^[A-Z][a-z]+</element>
</constraint>
</parameter>
<parameter type="int">
<valid/>
<constraint annotation="javax.validation.constraints.Min">
<element name="value">1</element>
</constraint>
<convertGroup from="javax.validation.groups.Default" to="com.acme.Basic"/>
</parameter>
<parameter type="long" ignore-annotations="false"/>
<returnValue>
<valid/>
<constraint annotation="javax.validation.constraints.Pattern">
<message>Last name has to start with with a capital letter.</message>
<element name="regexp">^[A-Z][a-z]+</element>
</constraint>
</returnValue>
<crossParameterConstraint annotation="com.acme.MyCrossParameterConstraint"/>
</method>
</bean>
I tried to follow the existing style and patterns. Some notes:
* Always all the parameters of an executable must be specified in order to identify overloaded executables, also if the configuration of a particular parameter shall remain unchanged (ignore-annotations="false" is to be used in this case).
* ignore-annotations on methods/constructors overrides ignore-annotations on the bean level; ignore-annotations on parameters/return values overrides ignore-annotations on the method/constructor and bean levels
* parameters are identified by their type. The FQN of the type is to be used (taking "default-package" into account), or "int", "long" etc. for primitive types.
* A getter method must either be configured using the "getter" or the "method" element. If both are given for one and the same getter, a ValidationException will be thrown.
Is there anything else we should add or consider? If there are no objections, I'll move forward with adapting the spec next week.
Thanks,
--Gunnar