[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-325?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13644100#comment-13644100
]
Jeroen van der Wal commented on ISIS-325:
-----------------------------------------
It looks like Dan fixed this though I can't find a related commit. Does this
mean it's now possible to put validation on either the getter, setter or the
private variable? This would make the use of Lombok possible and omit all
getters and setters from the class.
> Field validation annotations should be on setters or fields instead of on the
> getters.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ISIS-325
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-325
> Project: Isis
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
> Affects Versions: core-1.1.0
> Reporter: Minto van der Sluis
> Assignee: Dan Haywood
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: core-2.0.0
>
>
> Below is the discussion on the mailing list
> On 2 February 2013 15:29, Minto van der Sluis wrote:
> In the quickstart ToDo application I just noticed the following:
> @RegEx( validation = "\\w[@&:\\-\\,\\.\\+ \\w]*" )
> // words, spaces and selected punctuation
> @MemberOrder( sequence = "2" )
> public String getDescription() {
> ...
> To me it seems like validation is specified on the getter method. Is
> this correct? Shouldn't this be specified on the setter or the member
> field instead?
> On 3 February 2013 16:04, Dan Haywoord wrote:
> I agree that it might seem a bit confusing, but at the moment all the
> FacetFactory's only ever read the getter method for properties.
> I don't see anything in principal for extending the FacetFactory's to also
> look at fields and setters; in this particular case I could well imagine
> that someone might expect the annotation to live on the setter. The same
> is true for annotations such as @MaxLength.
> Another benefit of having the FacetFactory's look at the fields is that
> then Lombok [1] could be configured. This would save a lot of boilerplate,
> as I know you know.
> Making the change is relative straightforward, it's just a matter of doing
> a lot "grunt" work to quite a lot of existing FacetFactory's. I wouldn't
> have any objection to applying any patches received, though.
> And if you want to raise a ticket for this idea, please go ahead.
> Cheers
> Dan
> [1] http://projectlombok.org/
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
