Re: [bv-dev] Questions from BV spec 2.0 public draft

Hi, 2017-04-25 20:05 GMT+02:00 Matt Benson <mbenson(a)apache.org&gt;: I've been wondering the same, but come to think that it doesn't give you much. You (as a user) are going to work with specific node types (as narrowed down via getKind() + as()), so I would not expect you to deal with that super-type in your code. It'd put the declaration of those methods into one place, which is nice, though I kinda like the simplicity of the current Node hierarchy, with one specific sub-type per kind. What do others think? Ah, there's even an issue for this: https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-211. It would have been great to make this a self-referential type from the get-go, but at this point I'd rather leave it as is. Essentially it only causes a small effort to providers which need to redeclare all the ValidatorContext methods to return their own specialised sub-type. The reason I'm reluctant to add it is that users - when upgrading existing code to BV 2.0 - will get a raw type warning when assigning ValidatorContext to a variable. I'd prefer to avoid this, at the cost of the few method re-definitions to be done by providers once, which seems acceptable. Hum, yes, good point. I think I'd prefer that. @Emmanuel, I vaguely remember we discussed this. Did you see a good reason for the current default? @All, what do you think? --Gunnar