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

[Gerhard Petracek]

hi @ all,

@ "treat getter-methods as regular methods for method-validation":
there are cases which would benefit from it, but such a behaviour can also
break a lot!

-> if we support it:
imo we need a global config option as well as an api for de-/activating it.
in case of the api we would also need a possibility for de-/activating it
dynamically for one validation process. e.g. in a jsf application there is
only one phase (invoke application) of the request-lifecycle for which such
a feature could make sense (and for a lot of applications not even there).
in all other phases it just doesn't make sense and it would just be a
performance penalty which only leads to side-effects you can hardly control
(if a jsf implementation doesn't handle it explicitly).

that's imo also true for many other constellations which are independent of
jsf.

regards,
gerhard



2012/11/9 Hardy Ferentschik <hardy at hibernate.org>

> I have to back up Gunnar on this one on all counts :-)
>
> On 9 Jan 2012, at 10:13 AM, Gunnar Morling wrote:
>
> > Generally I don't think that considering getters during method
> validation really is a problem. So I wouldn't really have a problem with
> this being the default behavior (which it also is in the proprietary API in
> HV 4.3). I'd prefer that over excluding certain named methods from method
> validation as this goes against the principle of least surprise and would
> feel like an inconsistency to me.
>
> +1
>
> > But if validating getters during method validation really is a problem,
> I'd expect this to be the case generally throughout an application or
> system. Taking the example of JPA entities which used to be validated upon
> persisting only and now would their property constraints get validated upon
> getter invocation, then I'd prefer to disable getter validation globally
> instead of marking each individual property with an annotation.
>
> +1
>
> > If I as a user really needed a configuration per element, I could do so
> using validation groups. If for instance single constraints should not be
> validated upon getter invocation, I could use a group like this:
>
> +1
>
> Are not more people have an opinion on this issue?
>
> --Hardy
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121109/d0e0f7b8/attachment.html