[bv-dev] Support DI within constraint validators

[Hardy Ferentschik]

Hi,

I understand the consequences. I am not sure whether it is really such a good idea that the
integration is described/specified in the technology specs, but if this is how others are going to
do it, we should be good citizens and do the same.

I also agree with Gunnar that we need to review some areas of the spec regarding the wording.

--Hardy


On 22 Jan 2012, at 1:19 PM, 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