Re: [bv-dev] Method validation - cont'd

Normally I'd lean towards to javax.validation.spi, since PNP is something which is implemented by clients. But I think in BV 1.0, the "spi" package is centered more around bootstrapping. So personally I'd be fine with leaving PNP directly within javax.validation. Emmanuel, I think you originally raised the idea of putting it into a separate package. Do you have anything special in mind here? --Gunnar 2012/5/14 Hardy Ferentschik <hardy(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > Some of my preferences: > > On May 9, 2012, at 10:24 PM, Gunnar Morling wrote: > >> * Align on approach for cross-parameter validation > > I am still leaning towards #2 as described here - http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-241/#cross_parameter > Otherwise #3 > >> * Should method validation methods be defined on j.v.Validator or a >> dedicated new interface? > > Should be on javax.validation.Validator > >> * Further discuss @MethodValidated annotation with other EGs (e.g. JAX-RS) > > What's about @ValidateContract, @ContractValidated or even just @Constract > This get the "design by contract" idea in as well and it avoids the ambiguity when > it comes to constructors. > > > > --Hardy > _______________________________________________ > beanvalidation-dev mailing list > beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev