9:49 a.m.
I'm not sure. I think the annotation EG consider it bad practice and
implementation detail abouse to use the annotations as glorified interfaces.
In your case that's ok-ish (minor the XML DD) but if we want to add
behavior later on we might be stuck.
On Thu 2013-01-31 13:43, Gunnar Morling wrote:
Yeah, that's a good point of course. I liked using a map as it
very
naturally expressed that there may be only one rule per "from" type, but
making the API evolvable is more important I guess.
How about using ConvertGroup directly, i.e. return a Set<ConvertGroup>? In
that context the name doesn't read that well, but OTOH
GroupConvertionDescriptor
would more or less resemble ConvertGroup. WDYT?
2013/1/31 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>
> I'd rather have a GroupConversionDescriptor representing the from / to.
> My reason is that if we add a new attribute to @ConvertGroup later, we
> will be able to add it on the descriptor as well.
>
> I think we tend to use a Set for the collection of elements in the spec.
>
> So that would become a Set<GroupConvertionDescriptor>.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> On Wed 2013-01-30 22:39, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think one natural way for representing group conversions in the
> metadata
> > API would be to add a method
> >
> > Map<Class<?>, Class<?>> getGroupConversions()
> >
> > to ParameterDescriptor, ReturnValueDescriptor and PropertyDescriptor
> > (that's also how conversions are represented internally in the RI).
> >
> > Any thoughts on that, or other suggestions? If no one objects, I'd move
> > forward and add the method to the spec and API.
> >
> > --Gunnar
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/1/18 Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org>
> >
> > > > We should.
> > >
> > > Ok, I've created https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/BVAL-361 for
> this.
> > >
> > > --Gunnar
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/1/18 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>
> > >
> > >> We should.
> > >>
> > >> The reason the metadata API is complete is so that non Java system
can
> > >> propagate the constraints and logic of validation. Client side
> presentation
> > >> framework was the canonical example.
> > >>
> > >> On 17 janv. 2013, at 21:44, Gunnar Morling
<gunnar(a)hibernate.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> > As the title says: should we provide a way to access configured
> group
> > >> conversions via the meta-data API?
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm undecided, I don't really see where this would be
useful, OTOH
> > >> we've exposed all BV-related configurations via the meta-data API
so
> far,
> > >> so I guess we probably should for the sake of completeness.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thoughts?
> > >> >
> > >> > --Gunnar
> > >> >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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