+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@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for 2.b but -1 for a package annotation and/or config.
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev