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

[Matt Benson]

I think folk not being used to package annotations was a big part of
Gerhard's objections, but what I personally find more problematic is the
fact that multiple jars could conceivably include annotations for the same
package.  We might respond to that with a rule that a package annotation is
only applied to the archive in which it is found, but then, AFAICT, an
implementor would have to resort to bytecode analysis in order to sort out
which setting applies to which jar.  That could be more cleanly done by
using a resource-based mechanism for package configs per containing jar,
but then we're left with the IMO somewhat ugly situation of disparate
mechanisms for package config vs. everything else.

Matt


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>wrote:

> On Wed 2012-12-12 21:02, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> > 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.)
>
> I am curious about that. What makes you say that? What made them
> error-prone for Deltaspike?
> You mean unexpected because people are not used to them?
>
> Emmanuel
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121213/d9f60721/attachment.html