Re: [bv-dev] Validator#forMethods()
I have to back up Emmanuel here. 'forMethods' resonates much better and I think
that just reading this method name
users would have a better idea on what this is about compared to '
forExecutables'. I know executables might be the
right name now, but it always has the long standing meaning of binary executables which
might get you confused when
reading the method name.
I have another issue with the renaming. As you know by now I am a big fan consistency, but
how far do we want to take it?
If we rename the API we really should rename the whole feature and call it
"Executable validation". Do we want to go this far?
My gut feeling is no in which case I would also recommend to stick to
'Validator#forMethods()' in the API.
--Hardy
On 4 Jan 2013, at 11:31 AM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
I like forMethods because it resonates faster on people's mind.
But I
can live and get forExecutables grow on me. So I'm neutral.
Emmanuel
On Fri 2013-01-04 11:05, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While working on the TCK, I came across our new method
> Validator#forMethods() which allows to validate method and constructor
> parameters/return values.
>
> Given that we introduced the term "executable" when referring to both
> methods and constructors, I wondered whether the method should better be
> named "forExecutables()".
>
> 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