[hibernate-dev] Feedback on Bean Validation JAX-RS integration

[Emmanuel Bernard]

Many thanks guys.
The good news is that we all are very much aligned in what we think. I am writing an email to send this feedback to the JAX-RS team.

Emmanuel

On 1 juil. 2011, at 14:55, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:04:39 +0200, Gunnar Morling <gunnar.morling at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Some minor remarks:
>> 
>> * In listing 2 setEmail() instead of a getter is annotated.
>> 
>> I'm not sure whether this is intentionally, otherwise it would make
>> sense to use getters as in BV.
> 
> Good catch. I was assuming getters. Need to check whether this is really
> intentionally.
> 
> 
>> * "The order in which validations are checked is as follows:
>> constraint validations on fields and properties are checked first, on
>> resource classes are checked next"
>> 
>> I don't think we could currently ensure such an order in HV but I
>> guess it could be implemented. The question is whether this is really
>> required.
> 
> I understood this to be more of a JAX-RS thing. I thought that there is a
> way for same in the framework to distinguish between form parameter processing
> and "resource class populating". If so it is just a question where and how
> to call the validator. After re-reading the examples I am not so sure
> anymore. The examples just use MyResourceClass, but still seem to distinguish
> between resource class and non resource class.
> 
> 
>> * "If the getUser() method in [the implementing class] MyResourceClass
>> is decorated with any annotation ... all of the annotations in the
>> [implemented] interface will be ignored.
> 
>> I think this might require some more consideration. In HV we decided
>> against such an approach, as preconditions shouldn't be strengthened
>> in sub-types in order to obey to the Liskov substitution principle
>> [1].
>> Instead of the very conservative approach currently taken by HV (not
>> allowing parameter constraints for one method in several places in a
>> hierarchy)
> 
> I wonder what they think about this approach?
> 
> --Hardy