[bv-dev] Validator#forMethods()

[Gunnar Morling]

> I know executables might be the right name now, but it always has the
long standing meaning of binary executables which might get you confused
when reading the method name.

I can see your point about mixing this up with binary executables, but OTOH
I'd expect people to get more and more used to applying the term to
methods/constructors, given that it is also used in the JDK 8 with that
meaning. The JavaDoc further clarifies forExecutables()'s purpose.

> If we rename the API we really should rename the whole feature and call
it "Executable validation". Do we want to go this far?

Hmmm, I think this would be indeed a step too far.

IMO the general concept and its manifestation in method/type identifiers
don't have to match 100%. In some cases we speak about "method and
constructor constraints" anyways, and in section 4.5 we also explicitly say
"the term "method constraint" refers to constraints declared on methods as
well as constructors." So I think we don't have to adapt the spec wording,
but IMO using the correct method/type names would be beneficial for the
consistency of the API (which is what most users work with).

--Gunnar



2013/1/8 Hardy Ferentschik <hardy at hibernate.org>

> I have to back up Emmanuel here. 'forMethods' resonates much better and I
> think that just reading this method name
> users would have a better idea on what this is about compared to '
> forExecutables'. I know executables might be the
> right name now, but it always has the long standing meaning of binary
> executables which might get you confused when
> reading the method name.
>
> I have another issue with the renaming. As you know by now I am a big fan
> consistency, but how far do we want to take it?
> If we rename the API we really should rename the whole feature and call it
> "Executable validation". Do we want to go this far?
> My gut feeling is no in which case I would also recommend to stick to
> 'Validator#forMethods()' in the API.
>
> --Hardy
>
>
>
> On 4 Jan 2013, at 11:31 AM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I like forMethods because it resonates faster on people's mind. But I
> > can live and get forExecutables grow on me. So I'm neutral.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > On Fri 2013-01-04 11:05, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> While working on the TCK, I came across our new method
> >> Validator#forMethods() which allows to validate method and constructor
> >> parameters/return values.
> >>
> >> Given that we introduced the term "executable" when referring to both
> >> methods and constructors, I wondered whether the method should better be
> >> named "forExecutables()".
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> --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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130108/94ac67c8/attachment.html