Re: [bv-dev] XML-based configuration of method constraints and group conversions

What concerns me is that with this situation, the <method /> approach would lead to constraints being applied on the property when validating the bean. So either way, there is an awkward model. On Fri 2013-01-18 16:28, Gunnar Morling wrote: > 2013/1/18 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; > > > Do you think it makes sense to force people to always use getter for > > getters? My only concern is that it might feel awkward for what I call > > action getters that people don't consider getters. > > > > Hum, I don't think it makes sense to enforce this. The idea is that you can > chose to use either "getter": > > <getter name="foo"> > <valid/> > <constraint annotation="javax.validation.constraints.NotNull"/> > </getter> > > or "method" (e.g. for an "action getter"): > > <method name="getFoo"> > <return-value> > <valid/> > <constraint annotation="javax.validation.constraints.NotNull"/> > </return-value> > </method> > > as you like, but not both at the same time as they could conflict (similar > to that you must not have two "getter" elements with the same name). > _______________________________________________ > 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