[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-6578?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15890132#comment-15890132
]
Felix Meschberger commented on SLING-6578:
------------------------------------------
bq. Now coming to the point of overloading, if multiple validators register for
the same "address" (be it based on "service.pid" or some other property), that
would be already logged
(https://github.com/apache/sling/blob/trunk/bundles/extensions/validation/core/src/main/java/org/apache/sling/validation/impl/ValidationModelRetrieverImpl.java#L170).
Probably it would be good to take the "service.ranking" into consideration for
those cases, to make sure the highest service ranking get actually bound.
Ok, this is currently just a DEBUG message, which may be changed, of course.
The question remains: Is this a use case ? Or would that be stretching the
boundaries (and we all know developers love to do that) ?
> 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)
