But isn't this is the same with putting a real annotation to a getter? At least as long as we don't have something like @ValidateOnCall in BV (for which we then again would need a way for specifying in XML I guess).

Maybe it's a good idea to wait with the XML stuff for the getter work being finished.

--Gunnar



2013/1/18 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel@hibernate.org>
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@hibernate.org>
>
> > 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@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