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 >