[bv-dev] Method validation - cont'd

[Emmanuel Bernard]

OK I see now.
I am not sure I adhere to it but that's definitely interesting.

Some additional info:

- this can become a bit annoying or tricky if the method we want to validate methods from has non default constructors setting final attributes - the validator implementation would have to fake some of that
- this does not really address return value validation 

On 15 mai 2012, at 17:57, Matt Benson wrote:

> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Emmanuel Bernard
> <emmanuel at hibernate.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 14 mai 2012, at 18:21, Matt Benson wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Interesting point, the more so because I was about to suggest a
>>>> proxy-based variation of cross-parameter validation approach #3.
>>>> Maybe interface-only per spec, with subclassing as an optional
>>>> extension.  Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Actually, ruminating further on this... the approach I was thinking of
>>> would require at least a partial implementation of a given class, just
>>> to handle validation (any method result being discarded).  The
>>> subclassing capability would be necessary regardless of whether only
>>> interfaces were supported, so final methods would be the only thing
>>> off-limits.
>> 
>> You have lost me :) Can you detail further what you are proposing, maybe with some examples.
> 
> Okay, I have tried to organize my thoughts to some degree at
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BVAL/inheritance-based+cross-parameter+method+validation
> .
> 
> Matt
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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