[bv-dev] Type use constraints for field *and* property

[Christian Kaltepoth]

I agree with Matt here.

I would prefer to be consistent over dropping consistency for improved
performance in some cases.

So +1 for allowing constraints on both fields and getters.

Christian

2016-12-02 17:22 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <mbenson at apache.org>:

> As far as this goes, I agree that it makes sense to be flexible and
> consistent with earlier specification versions; i.e. to permit annotation
> of type parameters both on fields and their associated accessor methods.
>
> With regard to the mechanism used for reaching the validated contained
> values, my feeling is that some combination of the proposals at [1] is
> correct (i.e. the explicitness of the original proposal plus the aspect of
> your proposal to combine the extracted value with the associated
> path/node). It would probably also be helpful to provide an
> annotation-based shorthand for class developers to mark the extracted
> elements of custom container types without having to write an extractor
> implementation (which ties into my otherwise clueless response on an
> earlier thread ;) ).
>
> Matt
>
> 1.http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-508/
>
> On Dec 2, 2016 9:20 AM, "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As you may have seen, Emmanuel started a survey on how people would like
>> to use type-level constraints in Bean Validation: http://beanvalidat
>> ion.org/news/2016/11/23/survey-constraints-and-parameterized-type/
>>
>> While we are waiting for some more replies to that one, I started with a
>> PoC implementation of the value extractor idea in the reference
>> implementation in order to get a better feeling for it, it's limitations,
>> open questions etc.: https://github.com/hibernate/h
>> ibernate-validator/pull/592
>>
>> One thing we started to wonder is whether it should be allowed to put
>> type-level constraints to a field *and* the corresponding property getter
>> at the same time:
>>
>>     private List<@NotBlank String> strings;
>>
>>     public List<@Pattern(regexp="...") String> getStrings() { return
>> strings; }
>>
>> My first inclination was to say that it should be supported (as you can
>> put regular constraints to a field and its getter). A challenge is how to
>> obtain the values for constraint validation. In the spirit of BV 1 we'd
>> have to iterate the values directly from the field for evaluating the
>> @NotBlank constraint and a second time through the getter for @Pattern
>> validation. That's a potential performance issue of course.
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --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
>



-- 
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20161204/b7fe9a05/attachment.html