FYI my reply
Hi guys,
This is a very good proposal and quite aligned with Bean Validation (BV) ideas
and with future plans we have for Bean Validation 1.1.
In particular, we plan to add method validations (somewhat close to how we have
designed it in Hibernate Validator (HV)
http://docs.jboss.o
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
> wrote:
>
>> Some minor re
On 30 juin 2011, at 18:25, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> I don't really understand though what the "Client API" really does, but maybe
> some
> syncing/brainstorming in the programmatic API area could be useful for BV and
> JAX-RS.
I agree, I think it would be better not to support such a model i
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:04:39 +0200, Gunnar Morling
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 c
Hi,
I agree with Hardy - this looks very interesting.
I think there is to some degree an overlap with method validation as
possibly part of BV 1.1. I don't know about the timeline for the
JAX-RS proposal, but it might make sense that they base their work on
BV 1.1.
Some minor remarks:
* In list
Hi,
looks very promising to me. Up to "Validation in Client API
(Brainstorming)" everything seems
straight forward.
Obviously parameter validation is not officially part of the spec, but
luckily we already implement it ;-)
Regarding the client api, they seem to struggle with the same problem
