I'm also concerned about portability and simplicity. I feel it would be too meta and
not concrete enough to be useful.
I can be convinced otherwise but that's my initial feeling.
On 8 janv. 2012, at 10:16, Hardy Ferentschik <hardy(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
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
However, that excludes imo the explicit configuration of order, either via
@GroupSequence.ordering=PER_TARGET or via a simple order property in the constraint
As a user of BV I think I would rather prefer to directly see and hence be able to infer
And just imagine different compilers actually do have different orders. That would be a
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> 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
> 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
beanvalidation-dev mailing list