[bv-dev] Should getters be considered methods during validation

[Gerhard Petracek]

i had a nice discussion with matt.
since bv 1.0 only supports one validation.xml, i'm ok with a package config
in validation.xml.
however, package annotations are in most cases just unexpected (and
error-prone).
(e.g. in deltaspike we dropped such annotations because of that.)

@IsInvariant vs @ValidateOnCall:
still +1 for @ValidateOnCall - imo it's easier for users, because it
describes what will be triggered.

regards,
gerhard



2012/12/12 Hardy Ferentschik <hardy at hibernate.org>

> +1 for 2b as well and I am fine with package annotation. Given that many
> people group their packages
> around things like domain vs service classes, I think it can make
> configuration easier.
>
> I have to admit that 1b is growing on me, if getters would just not be
> excluded per default.
> In contrast to Sebastian I actually think that if a user configures its
> app to use method validation via some sort of interceptor or similar he
> wants it to occur for all methods. If a getter is annotated with @NotNull
> and I call this method I don't care whether
> is is returning a state variable or whether this is a calculated value.
> The returned value is supposed to be non
> null.
>
> Note, I am still against enabling method validation per default in a CDI
> environment. I still think it should an active choice to enable the
> appropriate technology. This also mitigates the problem of backwards
> compatibility imo.
>
> --Hardy
>
>
> On 11 Jan 2012, at 7:32 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for 2.b but -1 for a package annotation and/or config.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at 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/e57d02e4/attachment.html