11:19 a.m.
Hi,
I already commented on Emmanuel's blog post -
http://beanvalidation.org/news/2012/09/12/fine-control-over-method-valida..., but
want to summarize on the mailing list as well.
Bottom line is that I am also not convinced that @MethodValidated is needed.
Let's talk about a the two main use cases this annotation is supposed to solve.
#1 En- and disabling Method validation.
Some of the responses on the post saw the use case of @MethodValidated in disabling method
validation for classes/methods for performance reasons.
I am not sure, however, whether annotations is the best approach to do this. I think an
external configuration (e.g. via xml) is in this case preferable.
The annotation approach is forcing people to recompile and redeploy their code which
seems wrong in this use case and might not even be possible.
Another important point is that this annotation does not work well when used in in
hierarchies. To disable a method validation on a method of a subtype you have to
override the method in question to actually be able to place the annotation onto it. This
will violate Liskov's substitution principle. This would not be valid:
public class Foo {
public void placeOrder(@NotNull Order order) {
}
}
public class Bar extends {
@MethodValidated(validationMode=NONE)
public void placeOrder(Order order) {
}
}
@MethodValidated would only work on class level.
#2 Specifying the validation group
Again, annotations seem to be the wrong vehicle in this case. Really the groups to be
validated should be determined
at the top level validateParameters/ReturnValue. To make this fully dynamic the user would
need some sort of callback
to dynamically (based on some context information) determine the group to be validated.
The callback would give the user
access method is validated on which instance. Based on this the user would return the
group to be validated.
The question here is whether every integrator of method validation should provide its own
interface/callback or whether
Bean Validation should specify it.
Bottom line, I am backing up Emmanuel's concerns regarding the usefulness of
@MethodValidated. I think the use cases people want
to use @MethodValidated it is not suitable and other options should be explored. Whether
we need to specify these right now I am not sure
about.
Hopefully this revives the discussion :-)
--Hardy
On 12 Jan 2012, at 7:47 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
I am still working on the chapter describing how interceptor tech
integrates bean validation. We have decided to convert most of the
recommendations into mandatory rules. In particular around having method
validation activated by default.
Having a annotation to control whether or not a method was validated
made sense when it was not enabled by default but I wonder if we still
need it.
I have a bunch of questions for you. I tried to keep them short and to
the point so feel free to answer them one by one.
## What's your use case for disabling method validation?
Why would you want to disable method validation on a given method or a
given class?
## What's your use case for changing the default group?
`(a)MethodValidated(groups=Heavy.class)` let's you change validation from
the `Default` group to the group of your choice - in this case `Heavy`.
Provided that we will offer support for group translation when cascading
<http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-208/>
public class UserService {
public void createUser(
@NotEmpty @Email String email,
@Valid @ConvertGroup(from=Default.class, to=BasicPostal.class)
Address address ) {
...
}
}
do we really need the ability do decide which group to use to validate a
given method? What would be the use case?
To me it seems that it could makes sense to validate one group over
another based on:
- some environmental consideration
say a newbie user has more constraints on how it enters data
than an advanced user hence different groups
- the caller
say a branch of the code wants to apply different rules than
an other
In both case, it does not make sense to define the group via an
annotation on the method to be validated.
This would need to be a rather container specific behavior to let people
inject the right group for the right context.
## When would you want to only validate parameters or return values?
`(a)MethodValidated.validationMode` let's you validate both method
parameters as well as return value, or either one of them or none at all.
Do you have a use case in mind for such need?
## What inheritance rules make sense for `@MethodValidated`?
Assuming we have `@MethodValidated`, we need to define the overriding
rules.
We could decide that `@MethodValided` must be placed on the method to be
validated (no overriding rule), or we could try and add some or all of
the following rules:
1. `@MethodValidated` definitions on a method overrides the ones on a
class
2. `@MethodValidated` definition on a subclass overrides the ones on
superclasses
Interfaces make things harder as there would be no magic rule to decide
which definition has precedence over another in case of conflict.
We could consider that methods of a class implementing an interface
inherit the interface `@MethodValidated` definition (unless overridden).
And in case two interfaces define the same method, overriding the
`@MethodValidated` definition would be mandatory.
I can live with rule 1, I can support rule 2. but I feel that the rules
related to interfaces make things quite complex and not especially
readable. Plus I don't see why you would want to add `@MethodValidated`
on an interface. Not surprising as I don't see why one would do it on a
class method anyways ;)
## Conclusion
I realize that it must look like I am having a `@MethodValidated`
mid-life crisis but better now than later :D
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev