Re: [Springframework-developer] RE: validation stuff

[Seth L. <se...@eh...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


| Do you prefer 'explicit' (beforehand) configuration of the validateable
| classes via the metadata API or do you think it is better for that to
happen
| lazily/implicity when the registry validate(command, results) method is
| invoked?  In the latter case, we would cache the
| BeanValidator/PropertyValidator references in the registry once we derive
| them from the source-metadata resulting in better performance.


That is a great idea.  AttributeValidator should cache the validation
rules it finds for each command class.  Since AttributeValidator will
usually be used as a singleton, this might help and cut down on the
reflection and attribute discovery.

Hopefully I'll be allowed to checkin the current Attribute Validator and
we can start flushing it out.  I'm not sure what we gain from all those
levels of abstraction you have proposed.  One of the nice things I like
about the current attribute validator is that it doesn't introduce any
new classes or interfaces; it tries to remain small and simple.

But again, maybe those abstractions should remain only in the RCP
project.  Once they've proved themselves as useful to a more general
validation API (the current Spring one) we can integrate them.  I'm not
anti-abstractions, I just haven't seen the need for them (yet).

I don't want to lose the Errors interface from the validation API.  It's
integrated into Spring already and other APIs (like the JSP tags)
already work with it.

Seth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFARoNc5EIB1scRes8RAlNDAJ4h0aewSC4PGm8F06VBnvzFJ5u+4QCeOIMD
FLOsi9/0fHkUAESpEbY+3Cc=
=3/Qn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----