[cdi-dev] Support DI within BV constant validators

Pete Muir pmuir at redhat.com
Mon Aug 13 07:40:43 EDT 2012

Or, we could move that requirement from the CDI spec to the BV spec, and have BV cover it all...

If we put too much into CDI, it ends up becoming an integration dumping ground, which doesn't work so well, IMO.

On 5 Aug 2012, at 22:11, Gunnar Morling wrote:

> Hi Pete,
> In the BV 1.1 early draft we're currently saying the following [1]:
> ===
> Java EE should [...] enable Context and Dependency Injection (CDI)
> support to ValidatorFactory instances. In particular:
> 1) Let Validator and ValidatorFactory object be injectable.
> 2) Use a default ConstraintValidatorFactory implementation that
> returns CDI managed ConstraintValidator objects. The scope of these
> instances is dependent as the Bean Validation provider is responsible
> for them.
> 3) Provide CDI managed instances of ConstraintValidatorFactory,
> MessageInterpolator and TraversableResolver if customized classes are
> requested in the XML deployment descriptor.
> ===
> I think that's pretty much in line with what you're saying.
> What caught my attention was section 3.7 of the CDI spec which
> mentions built-in beans for Validator and ValidatorFactory to be
> provided by an EE container. So this covers 1) from above, but not the
> others.
> I'm wondering now whether 2) and 3) should be mentioned there as well
> or whether the entire section should be moved to the Java EE spec (I
> think that's what you're saying?).
> --Gunnar
> [1] http://beanvalidation.org/1.1/spec/#d0e6698
> 2012/8/2 Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>:
>> Hi Emmanuel, Gunnar,
>> Gunnar filed https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-241 however I don't think we should reference this in the CDI spec. Instead, Bean Validation should declare which of it's classes should be "Java EE component classes", which then makes them eligible for injection by CDI. These types are also referenced by the Java EE spec IIRC. ccing Linda and Bill, as this relates to how we define what receives CDI injections going forward, as I'm not sure they want to continue with this method.
>> Pete

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list