Send beanvalidation-dev mailing list submissions to beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to beanvalidation-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org You can reach the person managing the list at beanvalidation-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of beanvalidation-dev digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Should getters be considered methods during validation (Gerhard Petracek) 2. Re: Should getters be considered methods during validation (Sebastian Thomschke) 3. Re: Should getters be considered methods during validation (Gerhard Petracek) 4. Re: BVAL-192 'exclusive' flag for @DecimalMin/@DecimalMax (Hardy Ferentschik) 5. Re: Should getters be considered methods during validation (Emmanuel Bernard) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:32:40 +0100 From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek(a)gmail.com&gt; Subject: Re: [bv-dev] Should getters be considered methods during validation To: beanvalidation-dev List <beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: <CAGJtJfEbm4FpFB2V7iH50dABrH= RsbAsdWHOUeXRYP_j8OzPew(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" +1 for 2.b but -1 for a package annotation and/or config. regards, gerhard 2012/12/11 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; > That should hopefully be the last round. Here are the alternatives that > I think are viable http://goo.gl/ubjn3 > > Please give your feedback. > > Emmanuel > > On Tue 2012-10-23 18:19, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: > > For method validation, we have so far managed to get away with > > requiring an annotation based metadata to direct how method validation > > behaves. > > > > One question that popped up during the recent write up is whether or not > > getters should be considered regular methods and thus be intercepted and > > validation by CDI or AspectJ interceptors. > > > > I have my own ideas, but I'd like to get your opinion on the subject. > > > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20121211/... ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:17:56 +0100 From: Sebastian Thomschke <sebastian.thomschke(a)web.de&gt; Subject: Re: [bv-dev] Should getters be considered methods during validation To: beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Message-ID: <50C794F4.4010508(a)web.de&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi, I'm +1 for option 1b. A constraint annotation added to a regular non-getter method always describes a return value contract whereas a constraint annotation added to a getter method may be meant to be a) a return value contract or b) a property constraint, that only is supposed to be considered during bean validation. For getter method constraint annotation my gut feeling is, that you usually want b) - a property constraint definition. In OVal we have the annotation @IsInvariant to mark the constraints defined on a getter for being return value contracts if not present the constraints are not interpreted as return value contracts. Regards, Seb On 11.12.2012 16:50, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: > That should hopefully be the last round. Here are the alternatives that > I think are viable http://goo.gl/ubjn3 > > Please give your feedback. > > Emmanuel > > On Tue 2012-10-23 18:19, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >> For method validation, we have so far managed to get away with >> requiring an annotation based metadata to direct how method validation >> behaves. >> >> One question that popped up during the recent write up is whether or not >> getters should be considered regular methods and thus be intercepted and >> validation by CDI or AspectJ interceptors. >> >> I have my own ideas, but I'd like to get your opinion on the subject. >> >> 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 ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:12:49 +0100 From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek(a)gmail.com&gt; Subject: Re: [bv-dev] Should getters be considered methods during validation To: beanvalidation-dev List <beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: < CAGJtJfHQBtYg-ObT1MCBF47O_RdasnCtyDYv_X-JkbJe3bt_Ug(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" hi sebastian, i was going to +1 1.b as well, but i don't agree with point #1 (if it is globally and/or users have to do it in any case) and #2. (with @ValidateOnCall i'm ok with both default behaviours, if there is a way to change it for a bv-archive.) regards, gerhard 2012/12/11 Sebastian Thomschke <sebastian.thomschke(a)web.de&gt; > Hi, > > I'm +1 for option 1b. > > A constraint annotation added to a regular non-getter method always > describes a return value contract whereas a constraint annotation added > to a getter method may be meant to be > a) a return value contract or > b) a property constraint, that only is supposed to be considered during > bean validation. > > For getter method constraint annotation my gut feeling is, that you > usually want b) - a property constraint definition. > > In OVal we have the annotation @IsInvariant to mark the constraints > defined on a getter for being return value contracts if not present the > constraints are not interpreted as return value contracts. > > Regards, > > Seb > > On 11.12.2012 16:50, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: > > That should hopefully be the last round. Here are the alternatives that > > I think are viable http://goo.gl/ubjn3 > > > > Please give your feedback. > > > > Emmanuel > > > > On Tue 2012-10-23 18:19, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: > >> For method validation, we have so far managed to get away with > >> requiring an annotation based metadata to direct how method validation > >> behaves. > >> > >> One question that popped up during the recent write up is whether or not > >> getters should be considered regular methods and thus be intercepted and > >> validation by CDI or AspectJ interceptors. > >> > >> I have my own ideas, but I'd like to get your opinion on the subject. > >> > >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20121211/... ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:46:40 +0100 From: Hardy Ferentschik <hardy(a)hibernate.org&gt; Subject: Re: [bv-dev] BVAL-192 'exclusive' flag for @DecimalMin/@DecimalMax To: beanvalidation-dev List <beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: <E2199861-9455-4CFA-90F1-05C2CCCF4D92(a)hibernate.org&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>> @DecimalMax(value = "0.0", exclusive = true) >> >> Can we name it "inclusive" rather than "exclusive"? Personally I prefer >> positive variable/method names as I think they read better, in particular >> when it comes to negation. > > I think inclusive also has a clearer meaning, it took me three reads > through to work out what the purpose was. I wondered if Hardy picked > exclusive for a sensible default value, but gave up trying to get my > head around it (newborn baby is my excuse). Well, I just used 'exclude', because it was used in the jira ticket. Now that I think about it 'inclusive' is much better. Maybe I can play the newborn card as well? Does it still count after 4 months? I definitely still feel tired. Welcome to the club. --Hardy ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:26:15 +0100 From: Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; Subject: Re: [bv-dev] Should getters be considered methods during validation To: beanvalidation-dev List <beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Cc: beanvalidation-dev List <beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: <A828568E-799B-4BEF-A704-01CCCCDD2E89(a)hibernate.org&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" A couple of remarks, I am not tied to @ValidateOnCall. We can find better names and/or a different split. I like @IsInvariant described by Sebastian which means @ValidateOnCall(INCLUDE_GETTERS) in my proposal. My concern is that it would not scale for bean/package level settings nor allow to disable validation on a particular method. My point being, if we finally agree on the proper default and overriding approach we can refine names. Gerhard, let me try and clarify your position. You like 1.b but you want to be able to change the default global behavior per archive (with a validation.xml setting) if needed and therefore that's why you voted for 2.b. I don't see a big problem with that. My two concerns are: - I am not sure that would be useful very often in practice but I imagine it could be useful in a pure service archive - to know the behavior, it forces people to look for a validation.xml to see what behavior is set but as long as we have the default defined in 1, that's not a huge concern to me. Emmanuel On 11 d?c. 2012, at 23:12, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > hi sebastian, > > i was going to +1 1.b as well, but i don't agree with point #1 (if it is globally and/or users have to do it in any case) and #2. > (with @ValidateOnCall i'm ok with both default behaviours, if there is a way to change it for a bv-archive.) > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2012/12/11 Sebastian Thomschke <sebastian.thomschke(a)web.de&gt; >> Hi, >> >> I'm +1 for option 1b. >> >> A constraint annotation added to a regular non-getter method always >> describes a return value contract whereas a constraint annotation added >> to a getter method may be meant to be >> a) a return value contract or >> b) a property constraint, that only is supposed to be considered during >> bean validation. >> >> For getter method constraint annotation my gut feeling is, that you >> usually want b) - a property constraint definition. >> >> In OVal we have the annotation @IsInvariant to mark the constraints >> defined on a getter for being return value contracts if not present the >> constraints are not interpreted as return value contracts. >> >> Regards, >> >> Seb >> >> On 11.12.2012 16:50, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >> > That should hopefully be the last round. Here are the alternatives that >> > I think are viable http://goo.gl/ubjn3 >> > >> > Please give your feedback. >> > >> > Emmanuel >> > >> > On Tue 2012-10-23 18:19, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >> >> For method validation, we have so far managed to get away with >> >> requiring an annotation based metadata to direct how method validation >> >> behaves. >> >> >> >> One question that popped up during the recent write up is whether or not >> >> getters should be considered regular methods and thus be intercepted and >> >> validation by CDI or AspectJ interceptors. >> >> >> >> I have my own ideas, but I'd like to get your opinion on the subject. >> >> >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20121212/... ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev End of beanvalidation-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 11 **************************************************