[cdi-dev] Support DI within BV constant validators

[Gunnar Morling]

Hi Pete,

I can see your concerns, though I'm personally not really convinced of
putting this into the BV spec either.

I like the idea of BV providing services/functionality, which then can
be leveraged by integration technologies such as CDI/JEE or e.g.
Spring. Personally I feel we shouldn't refer to these integrating
technologies in the BV spec.

Wouldn't the JEE spec be the right place for defining the integrations
between the different contained specs/technologies? Those wouldn't
have to deal with such integration questions, could be used
independently under SE and closely integrated under EE.

Do you know whether there are any ideas already for using CDI within
JPA entity listeners? I think this should be rather similar: a spec
defines so-far unmanaged objects which should make use of CDI under
EE.

--Gunnar


2012/8/13 Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>:
> 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
>