[bv-dev] Method constraints and TraversableResolver contract

[Emmanuel Bernard]

That's an interesting question. I think you should call isReachable and isCascadable for params and return values. 
Imagine a constraint validating a JPA entity. You don't want it to be validated if the entity is a proxy. This constraint could access a few of the entity state properties. And that's before cascading. 

isCascadable was a contract added specifically so that the same entity would not be validated over and over if it happened to be referenced by several other entities in a dirty persistence context. 

Open an issue because we need to clarify all that in the spec. 

Emmanuel

Of the top of my head I cannot think of a reason why we would need to use isReachable on a parameter 

On 9 janv. 2013, at 15:42, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> working on the TCK, I'm wondering whether a BV provider should use TraversableResolver#isReachable() and isCascadable()) to check whether a validated method parameter or return value may be accessed/traversed.
> 
> I think checking for cascadability might make sense, but I'm not so sure about checking for reachability; can e.g. be a parameter not reachable?
> 
> If any of the checks shall be done for method validation, we need to update the TraversableResolver contract (section 4.6.3) which currently explicitly speaks about properties and is limited to the element types FIELD and METHOD.
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> --Gunnar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev