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@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev