[bv-dev] Package javax.validation.spi

[Gunnar Morling]

> In that regards, I would not put ParameterNameProvider in spi. But I feel it would pollute javax.validation. Let's try and find him a decent subpackage.

Ok, I'll add a TODO marker. Any suggestions?

> BTW what's the use case for a BV user to implement ParameterNameProvider? To configure it?

The use case would be a custom parameter name source, e.g. a custom
annotation type. I guess mostly BV providers and integrators (e.g.
JAX-RS could define a parameter name provider based on annotations
such as @PathParam) will create name providers, but BV users might
define one as well.

--Gunnar


2012/2/26 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
> My initial intention of SPI was to separate classes that are never seen my a user of Bean Validation. BootstrapState and co are contracts only used between the BV provider and the bootstrap process or the container integration. On the other hands, j.v.bootstrap is visible by a user.
>
> In that regards, I would not put ParameterNameProvider in spi. But I feel it would pollute javax.validation. Let's try and find him a decent subpackage.
>
> BTW what's the use case for a BV user to implement ParameterNameProvider? To configure it?
>
> +1 on better package descriptions.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> On 25 févr. 2012, at 14:15, Gunnar Morling wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm in the process of integrating the method validation proposal into
>> to the first draft of the spec. document. Thanks again for all
>> comments and feedback.
>>
>> While going over the ParameterNameProvider interface I wondered where
>> this interface should actually live. Should it be
>> javax.validation.ParameterNameProvider or
>> javax.validation.spi.ParameterNameProvider? Or put more generally,
>> what's the intention of the spi package in the BV API?
>>
>> ParameterNameProvider is intended to be implemented by BV providers,
>> integrators and clients. According to my understanding of the SPI idea
>> (separate parts intended to be *implemented* by clients [SPI] from
>> parts intended to be *used* by clients [API]) therefore I'd say it's a
>> candidate for the SPI package. But following that reasoning, for
>> instance also the ConstraintValidator interface should be part of the
>> spi package, which it isn't in BV 1.0.
>>
>> Based on the contained classes I'm supposing that the BV spi package
>> has a much more focused scope (bootstrapping). Then
>> ParameterNameProvider should go into javax.validation. Any thoughts?
>>
>> Btw. there isn't much package-level JavaDoc for the BV API in general
>> (only for javax.validation.groups). I think we should add some more
>> for BV 1.1. WDYT?
>>
>> --Gunnar
>> _______________________________________________
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev