Re: [bv-dev] Ordered Validation (practically)

I am not so sure whether such a contract would be such a good idea. If we want to hold on to the byte code or annotation processor idea (if the latter is even possible), such a contract would make sense. However, that excludes imo the explicit configuration of order, either via Emmanuel's @GroupSequence.ordering=PER_TARGET or via a simple order property in the constraint itself. As a user of BV I think I would rather prefer to directly see and hence be able to infer the order. And just imagine different compilers actually do have different orders. That would be a total mess. --Hardy On Jan 7, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Matt Benson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Gunnar Morling > <gunnar.morling(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: >> One idea might be to introduce some kind of "validation order >> provider" contract (similar to the parameter name provider we >> discussed recently) with a reasonable default implementation. >> >> BV providers could then come up with custom implementations based on >> byte code order, meta data pre-generated by an annotation processor >> etc. as they like which we still might spec later on if they proved >> useful. > > This sounds like a good compromise to transfer the responsibility from > the spec to the implementations for doing crazy things like reading > bytecode... so this would be a new collaborator managed for/by the > ValidatorFactory? _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev