Re: [bv-dev] @Valid and group translation

I don't have any strong opinion. I slightly tend to like the existing syntax which avoids some of the visual ugliness if one group rule is defined but that's only a small advantage. Emmanuel On Thu 2012-11-22 16:45, Gunnar Morling wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm looking for some input on an idea I got regarding group translation. > > When discussing the issue [1] we agreed that the groups to be converted > should be specified with a new annotation instead of directly within > @Valid. So that's what we have right now: > > public class User { > > @Valid > @ConvertGroup(from = Default.class, to = BasicContact.class) > private final Contact contact = new Contact(); > } > > IIRC the primary reason was that this new annotation could be re-used in > other places. IMO having a separate annotation is the right way, but WDYT > about specifying this annotation within instead of next to @Valid: > > @Valid(conversions= > @ConvertGroup(from = Default.class, to = BasicContact.class > ) > private final Contact contact = new Contact(); > > This would still allow to reuse the annotation, but avoids situations where > @ConvertGroup is given without @Valid. It also makes very clear what's > subject of the conversion (which might not be that obvious if the given > element hosts some more annotations). > > On the down-side the "inner" annotation syntax is not that elegant, > although it's actually shorter when specifying multiple conversions: > > @Valid(conversions={ > @ConvertGroup(from = Default.class, to = BasicContact.class), > @ConvertGroup(from = Full.class, to = FullContact.class) > }) > private final Contact contact = new Contact(); > > vs. > > @Valid > @ConvertGroup.List({ > @ConvertGroup(from = Default.class, to = BasicContact.class), > @ConvertGroup(from = Full.class, to = FullContact.class) > }) > private final Contact contact = new Contact(); > > This could be further mitigated by naming the attribute "value", although > I'm a bit shy of allocating that default attribute. > > If we already discussed (and rejected) this particular approach, please > ignore this mail, otherwise any feedback is appreciated :) > > --Gunnar > > [1] https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/BVAL-208 > _______________________________________________ > beanvalidation-dev mailing list > beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev