Re: [bv-dev] Method validation - cont'd
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Hardy Ferentschik <hardy(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
Some of my preferences:
On May 9, 2012, at 10:24 PM, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> * Align on approach for cross-parameter validation
I am still leaning towards #2 as described here -
http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-241/#cross_parameter
Otherwise #3
> * Should method validation methods be defined on j.v.Validator or a
> dedicated new interface?
Should be on javax.validation.Validator
Destroying backward compatibilty? Not such a big deal for full-blown
implementations, perhaps, but what about interoperability libraries
that may, for whatever reason, implement javax.validation.Validator?
Shouldn't a user be able to upgrade to a Bean Validation 1.1
implementation and still use libraries built against Bean Validation
1.0?
Matt
> * Further discuss @MethodValidated annotation with other EGs (e.g. JAX-RS)
What's about @ValidateContract, @ContractValidated or even just @Constract
This get the "design by contract" idea in as well and it avoids the ambiguity
when
it comes to constructors.
> * Should ParameterNameProvider go into a sub-package?
which one do you have in mind there?
--Hardy
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev