[cdi-dev] Support DI within BV constant validators

Emmanuel Bernard ebernard at redhat.com
Tue Aug 21 08:39:59 EDT 2012

On 15 août 2012, at 12:57, Pete Muir wrote:

> On 14 Aug 2012, at 21:47, Gunnar Morling wrote:
>>> I would guess BV, but it depends on the details.
>> In the light of what you've been saying before about moving the
>> description of integration points away from the Java EE spec to the
>> individual technology specs this seems reasonable.
>> Actually that's what we're basically already doing as of BV 1.1 early
>> draft 1 as mentioned before [1]. Maybe the section just needs to get a
>> bit more authoritative then. Although it might be a bit difficult for
>> a Java EE implementor to find all integration requirements within the
>> individual technology specs.
>> Pete, should the note on built-in beans for Validator and
>> ValidatorFactory from CDI spec. 3.7 be moved over to BV then? Let's
>> see what Emmanuel thinks on this.
> This would be good IMO. Gunnar, are you happy to raise this with Emmanuel/BV EG?

All good for me. I'd rather have everything at one place and BVal is a good enough place.

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list