On Jun 28, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Donald Woods wrote: > > > On 6/24/10 2:47 PM, Matt Benson wrote: >> Hello all-- >> I'm just getting my feet wet with JSR-303. I started out using >> hibernate-validator, but as a foundation member and general connoisseur of >> Apache Kool-Aid I thought the very least I could do is give bval a fair >> shake. So far, just browsing code and javadocs--my typical way of >> acquainting myself with an OSS project--I'm impressed, FWIW. >> >> What I want to do is expose all my validation information to my >> controller/view layers per the standard APIs, and here's the catch: >> *including* business-level validations which can be extremely dynamic in >> nature. To be more explicit, I am in the insurance industry, which (in the >> US anyway) consists pretty much entirely of "special cases." >> >> Firstly, is this considered out of scope of "Bean Validation" (the spec)? >> bval? If so, why?--It's my feeling that the spec intends that "validation" >> be quite an open-ended concept. A blanket "don't do this" would simply make >> me question the overall usefulness of the spec. However, it's obvious (at >> least, I *think* it is) that neither the annotation-based nor XML-based >> configuration methods can handle the dynamic application of constraints to a >> model. At the same time I want to be able to use those configuration >> methods for the subset of validations that *can* be handled so globally. >> >> I am thinking that I can reuse some of the underlying APIs from one of the >> existing Bean Validation implementations to maintain this dynamic >> information, then implement the ConstraintValidator for an e.g. >> @DynamicValidation annotation to reuse others' machinery. *This* I could >> configure in XML; best of both worlds. So to put this into bval terms, I >> could maintain a MetaBean graph for each distinct model graph and >> dynamically apply constraints per graph. >> > > Matt, these are exactly the type of ideas/features that we should be > discussing for inclusion in future releases. We can always provide > additional features beyond the spec, as long as we denote them as being > implementation specific.... >
I am trying to consume the API and get a feel for what I want to recycle. On that note, are there any current plans to improve bval's javadocs? On the original subject: If possible/practical I would be glad for my work to form the basis of a dynamic validation model in bval. Regards, Matt > -Donald > > >> This email has written itself in the sense that writing down my thoughts led >> to numerous edits and sculpted the above-outlined approach, which I'm >> tentatively feeling pretty good about, but I'd still like to get preliminary >> feedback from the community on the oh-shit level of the task I'm setting >> myself. >> >> Regards, >> Matt
