Re: [bv-dev] Should getters be considered methods during validation

if everything is fine in an application, you won't see issues with package annotations. that users aren't used to it is an important part, because package annotations are quite hidden and usually unexpected. esp. because they are quite unexpected, it can happen pretty easily e.g. during a refactoring/cleanup/... that the application behaves differently afterwards, but you don't recognize it immediately and later on most people just check the history of config file/s (and not the package-info). @ "... the first version found ...": yes - the behaviour you described is correct, but that's imo even worse. such issues are sometimes hard enough with classes (e.g. there are ee-servers which behave differently depending on the names of the archives -> something can work in application x and in application y there is the same setup but it fails due to different archive-names). since such issues are around for years a lot of people know about them, but imo issues caused by package annotations are harder to find, because package annotations are just unexpected and it's hard(er) to find the meta-data if it's e.g. a leftover in a different jar than the one you are looking at. fyi: mark just told me that the cdi-eg dropped package annotations as well. regards, gerhard 2012/12/13 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; > Having multiple definitions of package annotations for a given package > (via split packages) is equivalent to having the same class name used twice > in a split package. The first version found in your class path is the one > used by the VM. > I don't think we should use a different rule. And to me the same class > define twice is of the same level of error as a package-info.java defined > twice for the same package. > > On 13 déc. 2012, at 16:40, Matt Benson <mbenson(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: > > I think folk not being used to package annotations was a big part of > Gerhard's objections, but what I personally find more problematic is the > fact that multiple jars could conceivably include annotations for the same > package. We might respond to that with a rule that a package annotation is > only applied to the archive in which it is found, but then, AFAICT, an > implementor would have to resort to bytecode analysis in order to sort out > which setting applies to which jar. That could be more cleanly done by > using a resource-based mechanism for package configs per containing jar, > but then we're left with the IMO somewhat ugly situation of disparate > mechanisms for package config vs. everything else. > > Matt > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt;wrote: > >> On Wed 2012-12-12 21:02, Gerhard Petracek wrote: >> > i had a nice discussion with matt. >> > since bv 1.0 only supports one validation.xml, i'm ok with a package >> config >> > in validation.xml. >> > however, package annotations are in most cases just unexpected (and >> > error-prone). >> > (e.g. in deltaspike we dropped such annotations because of that.) >> >> I am curious about that. What makes you say that? What made them >> error-prone for Deltaspike? >> You mean unexpected because people are not used to them? >> >> Emmanuel >> _______________________________________________ >> beanvalidation-dev mailing list >> beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > beanvalidation-dev mailing list > beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > beanvalidation-dev mailing list > beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev > >

_______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev