Re: [bv-dev] Distinguishing cross-parameter and generic constraints

2013/1/15 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; > I can live with that but we must make it crystal clear that in case of > ambiguity, we raise an exception. Otherwise, someone changing the method > sig might have some nasty surprises. And which of the options @CrossParameterConstraint(validatedBy=MyCrossParameterValidator.class) @Constraint(validatedBy=MyGenericValidator.class) public @interface MyConstraint { ... } vs. @Constraint( validatedBy=MyGenericValidator.class, crossParameterValidatorType=MyCrossParameterValidator.class ) public @interface MyConstraint { ... } would you prefer? Personally I'd lean towards the latter, since there would be exactly one meta-annotation denoting an annotation as constraint annotation type, with all attributes for the required configuration. If following the 2nd approach, we should IMO add a default clause to validatedBy() (set to the empty array), allowing for the convenient definition of cross-parameter only constraints. According to [1] this change would be binary-compatible. But this is no strong preference, I could also live with the two separate annotations. --Gunnar [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Evolving_Java-based_APIs_2#Evolving_API_interface... _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev