[bv-dev] Method validation - cont'd

[Matt Benson]

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Hardy Ferentschik <hardy at hibernate.org> wrote:
> Some of my preferences:
>
> On May 9, 2012, at 10:24 PM, Gunnar Morling wrote:
>
>> * Align on approach for cross-parameter validation
>
> I am still leaning towards #2 as described here - http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-241/#cross_parameter
> Otherwise #3
>
>> * Should method validation methods be defined on j.v.Validator or a
>> dedicated new interface?
>
> Should be on javax.validation.Validator

Destroying backward compatibilty?  Not such a big deal for full-blown
implementations, perhaps, but what about interoperability libraries
that may, for whatever reason, implement javax.validation.Validator?
Shouldn't a user be able to upgrade to a Bean Validation 1.1
implementation and still use libraries built against Bean Validation
1.0?

Matt

>
>> * Further discuss @MethodValidated annotation with other EGs (e.g. JAX-RS)
>
> What's about @ValidateContract, @ContractValidated or even just @Constract
> This get the "design by contract" idea in as well and it avoids the ambiguity when
> it comes to constructors.
>
>> * Should ParameterNameProvider go into a sub-package?
>
> which one do you have in mind there?
>
> --Hardy
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev