1:42 p.m.
2013/1/15 Hardy Ferentschik <hardy(a)hibernate.org>
On 15 Jan 2013, at 7:56 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
> As you know we're likely going to exclude getter methods from method
validation by default
:-(
Yeah, I'd also prefer to include them by default, but there seem to be
powers working against us ;)
> The question is now how this configuration should look like and
where it
should be described. I think there is two separate components here:
>
> 1) BV which provides the logic/engine for performing method validation
> 2) Technologies integrating the method validation feature, e.g. CDI,
Spring etc. For CDI, the behavior of this integration is described in the
BV spec (section 10.2 [1]) as per the Java EE conventions. For e.g. Spring,
the behavior would be described in the Spring documentation.
>
> Regarding the configuration of including/excluding getters, one option
would be to define a BV-specific mechanism for the configuration of (e.g. a
global option in validation.xml and/or an annotation like @ValidateOnCall).
This mechanism would have to be queried by the technologies integrating
with method validation.
>
> Alternatively, whether to include/exclude getters could be part of the
configuration of 2). For CDI, this might e.g. happen by adding an attribute
"validateGetters()" to the interceptor binding annotation triggering method
validation, while e.g. Spring users might define an appropriate point cut
expression matching all those methods they want to validate. For CDI we
would again describe the exact means in section 10.2 of the BV spec.
But this would still mean that there is an option in BV to turn on/off the
validation of getters, right? Or do you suggest that BV is actually
agnostic of which type of method it validates and it is the integration
framework which is responsible for excluding getters.
Yes, that's what I had in mind. BV as the validation engine should validate
any method it is asked to validate, and the integration framework should
define/configure for which methods this is the case. For CDI we would still
define the details, but not as part of the validation logic but within the
CDI integration chapter of the spec.
> Personally I'd favor the latter approach for the following reasons:
>
> * The configuration of which methods to intercept is IMO a natural
responsibility of integrating technologies
> * Integrating technologies already define mechanisms for handling things
like inheritance of metadata (e.g. configuration given on super-types),
resolving conflicts of global vs. local metadata etc. It makes sense to
reuse these mechanisms instead of defining alternative rules in the BV spec.
Sounds interesting.
--Hardy
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev