Hi, Simone!

All classes where setters can be replaced with constructor injection. Like
ValidatorProvider. I'll take a closer look once i have time (probably on
the WE) and send patch for review.

Looks like original authors just prefer setter/field injection. IMHO it's
not the best way to constuct singletons as it lacks enforced immutability.
Also, it may be not 100% correct under Java memory model.

2013/2/3 Simone Tripodi <[email protected]>

> Hi Mikhail!
>
> thanks a lot for reviewing! Can you specify please the class(es) you
> noticed can be improved?
>
> TIA, all the best,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Mikhail Mazursky
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > Validation looks good. One thing i would have improved in code is get rid
> > of setter injection in favour of constructor injection. That would made
> all
> > those classes explicitly immutable and thread safe.
> >
> >
> > 2013/2/2 Simone Tripodi <[email protected]>
> >
> >> Salut Eric,
> >>
> >> since you mentioned the validation: did you have the time to have a
> >> look at the onami migrated [validation] component? migration should be
> >> quiet complete, but I'd wait for feedbacks after a discussion before
> >> to move it to /trunk.
> >>
> >> TIA!
> >> -Simo
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Simone Tripodi <
> [email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> btw, sitebricks for which I have just created a pull-request for
> >> validation
> >> >> with bval-guice [1] has a dedicated module for convertion [2].
> >> >
> >> > cool stuff, very well done, congrats! :)
> >> > -Simo
> >> >
> >> > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> > http://www.99soft.org/
> >>
>

Reply via email to