[
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HV-421?page=com...
]
Hardy Ferentschik commented on HV-421:
--------------------------------------
I need to look more into the programming by contract definition. The appeal of the current
approach is that it is in the sense of the BV spec to evaluate all constraints. Not sure
whether this is what users would expect. Is there a reason for the definition by
programming by contract.
Reconsider behavior of parameter validation for inheritance
hierarchies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: HV-421
URL:
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HV-421
Project: Hibernate Validator
Issue Type: Bug
Components: engine
Reporter: Gunnar Morling
Assignee: Gunnar Morling
Fix For: 4.2.0.Beta2
Let A extend B and A#foo() override B#foo(). When validating an invocation of A#foo() the
current implementation will evaluate all parameter constraints defined at A#foo() *and*
B#foo(). That way foo()'s preconditions defined in B are strengthened by A.
According to the ["Programming by
contract"|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_by_contract] article on WP this is
not allowed, subtypes may only weaken preconditions defined by supertypes. The common
implementation pattern for this is to combine the preconditions within a hierarchy by a
logical OR, meaning the weakest precondition in the hierarchy applies.
Note that postconditions (return value constraints) may be strengthened (but not
weakened) by subtypes. Therefore the current implementation (AND combination) should be
correct here.
--
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