[
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HV-441?page=com...
]
Hardy Ferentschik commented on HV-441:
--------------------------------------
The intend was always to hide (abstract) whether we deal with a field or property as much
as possible. Something like a {{AggregatedPropertyMetaData}} sounds reasonable and is
inline w/ what I mentioned about unification.
Regarding the builders we have to see how separate we can keep them, since there are
dependencies between them. For example the XML configuration can mark certain annotations
to be ignored. I guess that's what you mean with chaining. I also like the idea of
having the final model class immutable. Initially this was the intend of the
{{BeanMetaData}}, but got broken by introducing additional configuration means
(programmatic, XML).
Even though it would be nice to get this into 4.2 it is no requirement. This is not
anything the user gets affected by. I don't have time right now to start this
refactoring and you are on the critical path for the 4.2 release. It feels like it makes
more sense to get 4.2 out and start 4.2.x with a refactoring of the meta model.
Refactor BeanMetaDataImpl
-------------------------
Key: HV-441
URL:
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HV-441
Project: Hibernate Validator
Issue Type: Task
Components: engine
Reporter: Hardy Ferentschik
Fix For: 4.x
Due to the introduction of method level validation the {{BeanMetaDataImpl}} abstraction
started leaking. For example parts of the configuration data is now held at multiple
places. We have to start addressing this and pull things together again.
I started a discussion around this with Gunnar. My original question was:
{quote}
Could you have a look at my branch
https://github.com/hferentschik/hibernate-validator/commits/HV-433. The tests for this
issue are passing (CascadingWithConstraintMappingTest), in fact the whole test suite is
passing. The problem I encountered was around MethodMetaData and its cascading flag. In
the case of the test case it was not properly set. The code was just looking for the
@Valid annotation, but also has to check whether the method is explicitly (xml or
programmatic api) configured for cascading.
If you have a look at the branch you see how I changed that. The question which came up
in my mind is, whether there is not duplication between MethodMetaData and BeanMetaData
(at least regarding the cascading).
{quote}
Gunnar's response:
{quote}
Yes, that's certainly right. Actually I'm not quite happy with BeanMetaDataImpl
altogether atm. It is pretty complex code, is quite huge and I think we should tidy
up/restructure it for 4.3.
When implementing method validation I found that the meta model was not expressive enough
for the new method stuff, which was why I came up with more powerful model classes
accompanying BeanMetaData such as MethodMetaData and ParameterMetaData. The idea was that
the engine (ValidatorImpl) could simply ask a MethodMetaData whether it requires cascaded
validation or not for instance. At the same time I tried to to modify existing
functionality in BeanMetaDataImpl not more than necessary. So currently the situation is,
that method validation is based on MethodMetaData#isCascading(), while standard
bean/property validation relies on BeanMetaDataImpl#cascadingMembers. In BMDI's
constructor both structures are maintained.
Actually I'm proceeding on that path for HV-371. There I introduced
AggregatedMethodMetaData which represents a given method *and* all the methods up in the
hierarchy which it overrides/implements (basically this replaces the
Map<Class<?>, Map<Method, MethodMetaData>> methodMetaConstraints with
Map<Method, AggregatedMethodMetaData> methodMetaData. This should make things much
easier in ValidatorImpl, which now can deal with one AggregatedMethodMetaData object
instead of iterating over the complete inheritance hierarchy (So for instance
AMMD#isCascading() answers whether a cascaded validation is required for the given method
no matter where in the hierarchy it was marked with @Valid).
So I definitely think we should get these things more aligned again but I've got the
feeling we can live with the situation temporarily. WDYT?
{quote}
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/secure/Administrators....
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira