Re: [bv-dev] Method level validation

Thanks for the various feedback. Here are my thoughts. We can't rename BeanDescriptor to TypeDescriptor as it would break backward compatibility. Even then, I am not convinced that TypeDescriptor is a better name for BeanDescriptor. I agree we could revisit cross field validation to see if we could converge on a better approach, I've opened https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/BVAL-240 On named parameters we have three strategies I think: - not address the problem at all and use positional parameters to see what comes up JDK 8's hat (named parameters might not be represented as strings but rather as a typed object) - not address the problem in the specification but leave the API open enough for a provider to offer a named parameter friendly API - address the problem within the spec (the interface approach seems elegant) hoping for the named parameter to be represented as a String in JDK 8 I tend to like param0, param1 etc rather than arg0, arg1 but that's aesthetic. One part we have not addressed is how constraints are declared on the method. HV works that way (Gunnar, Hardy correct me if I side track). Constraints on parameters whose type is a subtype of the accepted types by the constraint are declared directly on the parameter void doHarm(@NotEmpty String kittenName); Constrains on parameters whose type is a constrained bean needs an annotation accepting the targeted groups. It was proposed to use @Valid for such case but recent discussions brought that back on the drawing board. https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/BVAL-208?focusedCommentId=43533#comme... There are a few notions floating around @Valid 1. cascade validation to nested beans 2. translate the validation of group A from the owning bean to validation of the group B on the nested bean (see <https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/BVAL-208>) 3. define the group to validate in a method level validation About 3., I wonder if this should be part of Bean Validation or be part of the interception framework. In other words: * should it be an annotation provided / proposed by Bean Validation and recognized by interception techs like CDI, @Inject, Spring, AspectJ etc * should each interception tech provide its own annotation to specify the targeted group(s) Emmanuel On 6 sept. 2011, at 12:16, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: