Re: [bv-dev] Support DI within constraint validators

Can you sync with Linda or Bill direct, as it really was just mutterings as you weren't on the call ;-) On 22 Aug 2012, at 13:34, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: > Of of the options is to have it defaulted to enabled. To disable validation or change the default group, @MethodValidated would be necessary. > Is that what the EE spec leads had in mind? > > On 22 août 2012, at 13:23, Pete Muir wrote: > >> BTW the Java EE spec leads were concerned about the @MethodValidated annotation being required at all. >> >> On 22 Aug 2012, at 12:19, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >> >>> Yes, one of the consequences as you point out is that we will define the @MethodValidated contract in BV. >>> While I think it's a good thing, I want everyone to understand this consequence. >>> >>> On 15 août 2012, at 22:56, Gunnar Morling wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> based on an issue I recently filed, CDI lead Pete Muir started a >>>> thread on the integration of BV and CDI over on the CDI mailing list >>>> [1]. >>>> >>>> The general question is where this integration should be described. My >>>> first assumption was, that the Java EE platform spec. would be the >>>> right place for this is, but Java EE co-lead Bill Shannon pointed out >>>> [2] that the preferred approach is to have such integrations described >>>> in one of the involved technology specs. >>>> >>>> And actually we're already doing this to some degree as of the BV 1.1 >>>> early draft [3]. So I guess our descriptions there need just to be a >>>> bit more authoritative ("must" instead of "should" etc.) and specific. >>>> In section 3.7, the CDI spec. currently also mentions built-in beans >>>> for Validator and ValidatorFactory to be provided by a Java EE >>>> container. To consolidate the specs I tend to think that this section >>>> should be merged into BV section 5.5.7.1. >>>> >>>> The same approach should probably also be taken for the description of >>>> triggering method validation under Java EE using the @MethodValidated >>>> annotation. >>>> >>>> Any thoughts? >>>> >>>> --Gunnar >>>> >>>> [1] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/2012-August/001978.html >>>> [2] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/2012-August/002045.html >>>> [3] http://beanvalidation.org/1.1/spec/#d0e6698 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list >>>> beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev >>> >> >