Any progress on this? On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Keith Garry Boyce <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't see any problem with the spec currently wrt this. Of course I may > find something the deeper I get but for now my problem is that the bval > implementation uses the the class and the POJO methods directly rather than > some plugable way to determine these things. > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think we probably could experiment with such things at the bval impl >> level. But I doubt that this is possible by utilizing the spec API. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> > Am 08.04.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Keith Garry Boyce <[email protected]>: >> > >> > I was looking into using bval to do RDF (triple store) validation but >> the API currently does not allow for modifications at that level.. >> > What I want is to have a validation xml like follows: >> > >> > <bean class=" >> http://cambridgesemantics.com/ontologies/2009/08/Predicate#Person"; >> ignore-annotations="false"> >> > <field name=" >> http://cambridgesemantics.com/ontologies/2009/08/Predicate#reqProp";> >> > </field> >> > </bean> >> > >> > Where instead of the class being a class it's at URI defining an RDF >> type and the fieled is a URI defining a predicate. >> > >> > When I follow the code base in ApacheValidatorFactory it instantiates >> new ValidationMappingParser >> > >> > >> > which appears to be very class centric hence I can't really implement a >> variation that doesn't just override the accessors. >> > >> > I would like to be able to do validate(aPerson) and in configuration >> define what property off the object defines the type rather than the Class >> itself. >> > Then I would also like to overide the field accessors so I can make my >> own implementation of how to extract the value of each field from the >> object. >> > >> > So simply I'm asking for the standard java validation spec (or at least >> this implementation) to allow for more flexible validation options. >> > >> > Any thoughts? >> >> >
