Re: [bv-dev] Distinguishing cross-parameter and generic constraints

On the subject, Gunnar and I were discussing three valid options to define a constraint as cross-parameter constraint: ## @CrossParametersConstraint (first off I hate the name, can't we find a better one?) @Constraint(validatedBy=ObjectScriptAssert.class) @CrossParametersConstraint(validatedBy=ObjectScriptAssert.class) public @interface ScriptAssert { ... } ## @Constraint for both @Constraint(validatedBy=ObjectScriptAssert.class validatedByForCrossParameters=ObjectScriptAssert.class) public @interface ScriptAssert { ... } ## @Validates on ConstraintValidator @Constraint(validatedBy=ObjectScriptAssert.class) public @interface ScriptAssert { ... } @Validates({CROSS_PARAMETERS, ANNOTATED_ELEMENTS}) public class ObjectScriptAssert implements ConstraintValidator<ScriptAssert,Object[]> { ... } ## Thoughts I think I like @CrossParametersConstraints more than @Constraint for both as it makes things explicit and keep the simple use case as is. But I am intrigued by the @Validates option. In many ways, it's similar to how we resolve the right constraint validator based on the type. The only difference is that the @Validates annotation refines how Object[] should be interpreted. It "fits better" in my opinion. My concern around the latest option is that it forces us to be a subclass of ConstraintViolation for the foreseeable future including when we reopen the type-safe options we explored in http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-232/ Thoughts and comments? Emmanuel On Tue 2013-01-15 15:14, Gunnar Morling wrote: