Re: [bv-dev] Method level validation

as an alternative we could think about a solution >similar< to cdi qualifiers. that would be also useful for cross-field validation. i would like to suggest a wiki which shows all possibilities side by side (+ examples). regards, gerhard 2011/9/8 Hardy Ferentschik <hardy(a)hibernate.org&gt; On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 22:55:47 +0200, Sebastian Thomschke <sebastian.thomschke(a)web.de&gt; wrote: > Its a very unfortunate limitation in Java's reflection API that it does > not provide the ability to determine the declared parameter names. OVal > provides a pluggable parameter name resolver, with a very simple > interface: > > public interface ParameterNameResolver > { > String[] getParameterNames(Constructor< ? > constructor) throws > ReflectionException; > String[] getParameterNames(Method method) throws > ReflectionException; > } I like the idea of introducing an interface for parameter name resolution. The default and simple implementation would be the enumerated names. Other implementations could be based on byte code enhancing (like mentioned here) or a meta model created by an annotation processor (like Kevin suggested in HV-409). --Hardy _______________________________________________ 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