Re: [bv-dev] Should getters be considered methods during validation

+1 for 2b as well and I am fine with package annotation. Given that many people group their packages around things like domain vs service classes, I think it can make configuration easier. I have to admit that 1b is growing on me, if getters would just not be excluded per default. In contrast to Sebastian I actually think that if a user configures its app to use method validation via some sort of interceptor or similar he wants it to occur for all methods. If a getter is annotated with @NotNull and I call this method I don't care whether is is returning a state variable or whether this is a calculated value. The returned value is supposed to be non null. Note, I am still against enabling method validation per default in a CDI environment. I still think it should an active choice to enable the appropriate technology. This also mitigates the problem of backwards compatibility imo. --Hardy On 11 Jan 2012, at 7:32 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > +1 for 2.b but -1 for a package annotation and/or config. _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev