Hi,
I think the proposed feature is in line with the overall design principles
of Bean Validaton.
Given how much effort was put onto making the API as typesafe as possible
it seems natural to
do the same for isValid().
I would really like feedback on it as we could arrange some of these
rules to not fail (at least in the latter case):
- do we want this type-safe + auto resolution algorithm strategy or
should we stick with the untyped solution
+1 for typesafe.
- do we want to fail in case of ambiguity or rather choose the first
compatible provider?
+1 for fail on ambiguity
@Constraint(validatedBy={
StringSizeValidator.class, CollectionSizeValidator.class,
MapSizeValidator.class, ArraySizeValidator.class} )
public @interface Size { ... }
I agree with Sanne's comment here:
I am not liking the flexibility to have several different
implementations associated to the same annotation;
IMHO using a 1-1 should be more clear to the user which validation
implementation he is going to use.
A 1-1 mapping seems to be more natural. It also will remove general
ambiguity.
--Hardy
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
