Re: [hibernate-dev] ORM DDL doesn't reflect BV constraints with validation mode CALLBACK

> How is a String "CALLBACK,DDL" considered "multiple values" to an XSD? I was referring to the dedicated <validation-mode> element, which is restricted to the values AUTO, CALLBACK, NONE in that XSD and which can be given at most once [1]. I can see though how it'd work with the javax.persistence.validation.mode String property. So, yeah, technically no change needed. Still quite subtle and very easy to miss. Waiting a bit for some more feedback by others, if we decide to leave it as is, we need at least to update the HV docs to describe this in more depth (we only mention <validation-mode> but not that string property). [1] https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/blob/master/tooling/metamodel-... . 2018-02-07 20:05 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > How is a String "CALLBACK,DDL" considered "multiple values" to an XSD? > > Look, I don't mind revisiting a change here. I really have no horse n > this race - this is not even my code originally. TBH I thought this was > code that you did. So I don't mind changes here if there is a consensus. > But let's use real reasons ;) > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:53 PM Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; > wrote: > >> Right, giving multiple values isn't allowed as per JPA's XSD. >> >> 2018-02-07 19:44 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >> >>> Of course you can. `mode = CALLBACK,DDL` >>> >>> You mean that you cannot using single-valued setting >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:02 PM Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 2018-02-07 16:08 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >>>> >>>>> Ok, so this is the crux then because it really comes down to whether >>>>> you >>>>> believe whether it is valid to *only* export the annotation-based >>>>> validations as DDL. >>>>> >>>>> And keep in mind that this code is basically unchanged from all the >>>>> way >>>>> back to the initial "integrations" with HV. So back then the >>>>> thought-process (not mine, btw) was that yes, that *is* valid - hence >>>>> the >>>>> option to chose just DDL as an option. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You'd still have that ability with my suggestion, just keep validation >>>> mode to NONE and set hibernate.validator.apply_to_ddl = true. >>>> >>>> By "safest mode" above I meant CALLBACK is the right way if you really >>>> want to make sure that lifecycle validation occurs, or you'll get an >>>> exception if no BV provider is present. It can't happen that lifecycle >>>> validation silently, unexpectedly doesn't happen. Hence I prefer it over >>>> AUTO. And as things stand I can't benefit from constraints in DDL export in >>>> that case, which is a pity. >>>> >>>> But if thats now no longer valid then that changes things. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:15 PM Guillaume Smet < >>>>> guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> > Hi, >>>>> > >>>>> > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org >>>>> > >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Is it valid for a user to want *just* DDL-based validation? How >>>>> would >>>>> >> that >>>>> >> work in Gunnar's request? >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > From your writings, I suspect I'm the only one with this opinion >>>>> but my >>>>> > answer would be: "not if you use Bean Validation annotations". >>>>> > >>>>> > If you use BV's @NotNull, you expect BV to validate the input. And >>>>> you >>>>> > might want additional DDL in your database to be on the safe side >>>>> (which >>>>> > should be the default IMHO). >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Guillaume >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> hibernate-dev mailing list >>>>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >>>>> >>>> >>