Here is a transcript of a chat I had with Pete on the subject. Sorry for the typos. Basically, there is no way to host settings in beans.xml so we need to have them in validation.xml. I'll sleep through the subject before coming up with a way but if you ahve opinion, speak up :) That raises also side questions around https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/BVAL-364 --- Pete Muir about your email basiclaly there is no way to configure this from beans.xml i don't quite understand the problem? It's due to the fact you can't access validation.xml from the PE? Emmanuel you can but we woul host a setting that the BV implementor would not make use of which feels weird to me Pete Muir i don't understand "But it turns out that the portable extension is enabled at a different tie than a ValidatorFactory. So using the programmatic API to change the setting would not be reflected. Likewise, the portable extension would need to read the validation.xml to find the setting." Emmanuel If as a user I do Validation.byDefaultProvider().configure().executableValidated(NON_GETTER_METHODS, CONSTRUCTOR).buildValidatorFactory() then this setting will be ignored entirely Pete Muir why? surely you just call into the BV config when you execute the intereceptor? Emmanuel Because the PE or the container specific way of binding interceptors and the right methods will have been executed way before Pete Muir as obviously the PE is executed at app start which is something different to the way of starting BV Emmanuel Well not exactly, the initilal idea was not to do a noop when validateParameters etc are called even if they are supposed to be filtered because we wanted the binding to not intercept methods that don't need to be (to be faster) Pete Muir hmm, ok well i don't think will work Emmanuel so the PE would need to know what the global etting is. Even worse it needs to take into account XML overriding for method level constraints so somehow it needs to start a ValidatorFactory even if it ditches it later on Pete Muir well unless you mandate that the VF is started at app start, then this won't work or you provide a portable way to parse validation.xml and extract this setting Emmanuel The global setting might be doable but not all the XML overriding approach (portable way). Ther eis a portable way but that's by starting a VF and calling upon its metadata API Pete Muir no, this is just an incompatibility between the java ee way, and the BV way as you can start BV separately from the app deploy i don't think that is resolvable really, it's just a different concept Emmanuel Not following you. You mean e cna't start the VF in the PE (or the proprietary way of wiring things) Pete Muir no i mean that most EE specs assume that the service (e.g. EJB, JSF, JAX-RS, CDI etc) start when the app deploys so we integrate their startup process, and allow configuration integration BV is different, because you can start it at any point Emmanuel ah yes ok got that Well the injectable and lookupable VF /V are started at app start Pete Muir so you can't override a CDI startup setting from a BV startup setting Emmanuel (per EE rules) Pete Muir it's not possible as the it doesn't happen at the same time so the only way you can definitely do what you want is via validation.xml programmatic, it will never work unless you make it a runtime noop in cdi does that make sense Emmanuel I'm feverish so I'm not sure but I think so "unless you make it a runtime noop in cdi" that I did not follow though you mean a runtime noop when calling the validator right? Pete Muir i.e. you bind the interceptor and in the interceptor you call ctx.proceed() immediately if the validator isn't required Emmanuel yes ok But if we accept that rules defined in XML are the one used for method validation then I can do my optimization (in this case I give up on the programmatic API option) I don't want to over intercept for perf reason so I'm ready to compromise a here Pete Muir yes agreed i don't see another way, it's just not compatible and it's all you would get in CDI *anyway* Emmanuel ok thanks for the chat, I have the data I needed I think. I'll paste this to the thread On Wed 2013-01-23 17:30, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: