[bv-dev] Method validation - cont'd

[Gunnar Morling]

>> * Should ParameterNameProvider go into a sub-package?

> which one do you have in mind there?

Normally I'd lean towards to javax.validation.spi, since PNP is
something which is implemented by clients. But I think in BV 1.0, the
"spi" package is centered more around bootstrapping.

So personally I'd be fine with leaving PNP directly within javax.validation.

Emmanuel, I think you originally raised the idea of putting it into a
separate package. Do you have anything special in mind here?

--Gunnar


2012/5/14 Hardy Ferentschik <hardy at hibernate.org>:
> 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
>
>> * 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