i had a nice discussion with matt.
since bv 1.0 only supports one validation.xml, i'm ok with a package config in validation.xml.
however, package annotations are in most cases just unexpected (and error-prone).
(e.g. in deltaspike we dropped such annotations because of that.)

@IsInvariant vs @ValidateOnCall:
still +1 for @ValidateOnCall - imo it's easier for users, because it describes what will be triggered.

regards,
gerhard



2012/12/12 Hardy Ferentschik <hardy@hibernate.org>
+1 for 2b as well and I am fine with package annotation. Given that many people group their packages
around things like domain vs service classes, I think it can make configuration easier.

I have to admit that 1b is growing on me, if getters would just not be excluded per default.
In contrast to Sebastian I actually think that if a user configures its app to use method validation via some sort of interceptor or similar he
wants it to occur for all methods. If a getter is annotated with @NotNull and I call this method I don't care whether
is is returning a state variable or whether this is a calculated value. The returned value is supposed to be non
null.

Note, I am still against enabling method validation per default in a CDI environment. I still think it should an active choice to enable the
appropriate technology. This also mitigates the problem of backwards compatibility imo.

--Hardy


On 11 Jan 2012, at 7:32 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for 2.b but -1 for a package annotation and/or config.


_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev