[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-6578?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15890105#comment-15890105
]
Felix Meschberger commented on SLING-6578:
------------------------------------------
Hmm, in a private conversation [~cziegeler] mentioned "overloading" of
validators. Consider a validator x.y.z is configured and provided by bundle
a.b.c. Now another bundle f.g.h wants to register a different validation
behaviour for this configured validator x.y.z. So f.g.h registers another
validator with that name/identity but a higher service ranking value.
In this case, using the service.pid which is defined to be a "unique
identifier" (but not enforced), is somewhat dubious.
Is that a use case here for validators ?
Don't we make reasonating about which validators actually apply harder ?
> Use "service.pid" property instead of class name to reference validators
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SLING-6578
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-6578
> Project: Sling
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Konrad Windszus
> Assignee: Konrad Windszus
>
> Leveraging the component's "service.pid" property value instead of its
> classname is more stable (even if implementation changes, the PID might stay
> the same) and also allows for configuration factories to refer to a specific
> validator configuration. The fallback should be the property "component.name"
> as "service.pid" is not always necessarily set. Basically the validator
> should be referable via each of those value, i.e. one of the "service.pid"s
> or the "component.name".
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
