On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:10:29 +0100, Emmanuel Bernard
wrote:
2 should we have and or should
be directly under ?
3 should we have or should be under
directly?
I would drop fields, getters and groups. It makes the xml jsut more
verbose. Unless of course there is a
real benefi
Latest refinements and batch of questions: 1 I gave up type subclassing, too much work and nobody seems excited 2 should we have and or should be directly under ? 3 should we have or should be under directly? 4 should we allow 30 with the risk of people doing 30blahor should we mandate the
>
> BTW, what does do?
>
> --Hardy
Hope the spec is not going out with the typo in "inheritance".
We discussed about it here : http://forum.hibernate.org/viewtopic.php?t=985463
It is meant to disable inherited contraints, for when you may want to
define some different
constraint in subclasses ov
Hi,
Should the ignore-annotation flag be a level attribute only
or should a user be able to define it at the field/method/class level?
I think bean level annotation is sufficient. I am sure that some people
can come up with some sort of use case field and method level, but it just
adds unnec
Feedback please. I am sick of talking to myself
On Jan 21, 2009, at 23:37, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
I looked at the OVAL schema and as usual there are good stuffs here,
I also added some missing elements
- I forgot the flag to be able to ignore existing annotations
- I forgot the @Valid equ
I looked at the OVAL schema and as usual there are good stuffs here, I
also added some missing elements
- I forgot the flag to be able to ignore existing annotations
- I forgot the @Valid equivalent
- OVal has the ability to describe OVal specific constraints in a
typesafe way but not custo
Here is my very first attempt to describe the constraint mapping XML
schema.
I did not look at other product approach to avoid being tainted. If
you have examples of alternative approach, I would appreciate a link.
A couple of comments:
- I would have preferred a Web Beans style XML approach
