Re: [bv-dev] Should getters be considered methods during validation

Hi, I'm +1 for option 1b. A constraint annotation added to a regular non-getter method always describes a return value contract whereas a constraint annotation added to a getter method may be meant to be a) a return value contract or b) a property constraint, that only is supposed to be considered during bean validation. For getter method constraint annotation my gut feeling is, that you usually want b) - a property constraint definition. In OVal we have the annotation @IsInvariant to mark the constraints defined on a getter for being return value contracts if not present the constraints are not interpreted as return value contracts. Regards, Seb On 11.12.2012 16:50, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: > That should hopefully be the last round. Here are the alternatives that > I think are viable http://goo.gl/ubjn3 > > Please give your feedback. > > Emmanuel > > On Tue 2012-10-23 18:19, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >> For method validation, we have so far managed to get away with >> requiring an annotation based metadata to direct how method validation >> behaves. >> >> One question that popped up during the recent write up is whether or not >> getters should be considered regular methods and thus be intercepted and >> validation by CDI or AspectJ interceptors. >> >> I have my own ideas, but I'd like to get your opinion on the subject. >> >> Emmanuel >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev